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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

252/2026

Filing Date

07-03-2026

Registration No

252/2026

Registration Date

07-03-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11195009260158

Police Station

CHHAPI POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 483,

Petitioner(s)

SEJAMINA RAHEMATULLA KAROVALIYA

Adv. D N MAKAWANA

Respondent(s)

Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P VAISHNAV

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

12-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

ORDER

10-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case