SEJAMINA RAHEMATULLA KAROVALIYA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P VAISHNAV — 252/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBK010008442026
Filing Number
252/2026
Filing Date
07-Mar-2026
Registration No
252/2026
Registration Date
07-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195009260158
Police Station
CHHAPI POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SEJAMINA RAHEMATULLA KAROVALIYA
Adv. D N MAKAWANA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P VAISHNAV
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
SUMMARY The Sessions Judge at Banaskantha rejected the regular bail application of Sejmina Rahematulla Karovaliya under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court found that the applicant was involved in attacking government employees with weapons (knife, brick, hot water/oil) while they were performing official duties, causing injuries to an ASI. The judge held that given the gravity of the charges, the applicant's apparent status as a habitual offender (with another recent case), and the ongoing investigation, bail could not be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Order
Principal District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 252/2026
SUMMARY The Sessions Judge at Banaskantha rejected the regular bail application of Sejmina Rahematulla Karovaliya under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court found that the applicant was involved in attacking government employees with weapons (knife, brick, hot water/oil) while they were performing official duties, causing injuries to an ASI. The judge held that given the gravity of the charges, the applicant's apparent status as a habitual offender (with another recent case), and the ongoing investigation, bail could not be granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts