VAKILKHAN IDRISHKHAN ISMAILKHAN MEV vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - D H CHAPIYA — 253/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBK010008452026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
253/2026
Filing Date
07-03-2026
Registration No
253/2026
Registration Date
07-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR
Judge
6-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195010250779
Police Station
PALANPUR CITY WEST POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VAKILKHAN IDRISHKHAN ISMAILKHAN MEV
Adv. A A BIHARI
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - D H CHAPIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 6-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 13-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 10-03-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha rejected the successive bail application of Vakilkhan Idrishkhan Ismailkhan Mev under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the applicant failed to establish any new or overwhelming circumstances justifying bail, as the grounds raised (regarding procedural defects in arrest) were already available but not raised in previous bail applications before the Magistrate and High Court. The court held that technical objections cannot serve as grounds for successive bail and criticized the practice of raising forgotten arguments in subsequent applications as an abuse of the judicial process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha rejected the successive bail application of Vakilkhan Idrishkhan Ismailkhan Mev under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the applicant failed to establish any new or overwhelming circumstances justifying bail, as the grounds raised (regarding procedural defects in arrest) were already available but not raised in previous bail applications before the Magistrate and High Court. The court held that technical objections cannot serve as grounds for successive bail and criticized the practice of raising forgotten arguments in subsequent applications as an abuse of the judicial process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts