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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 483,

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

16-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

ORDER

10-03-2026

ORDER

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case