MUKESHKUMAR BHIKHARAM PRAMARAM BISHNOI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - D K PUROHIT — 267/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBK010010112026
Filing Number
267/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
267/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR
Judge
5-3rd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195003260030
Police Station
AMIRGADH POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MUKESHKUMAR BHIKHARAM PRAMARAM BISHNOI
Adv. A A BIHARI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - D K PUROHIT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
CASE SUMMARY - Case No. 267/2026 The court granted regular bail to petitioner Mukeshkumar Bhikharam Premaram Bishnoi, who was arrested under NDPS Act sections 8(c), 22(b), and 29 for alleged drug peddling. The court found that while the charge sheet was filed, the petitioner's name appeared in the case primarily based on a co-accused's statement, which constitutes weak evidence. Notably, the seized quantity was intermediate, not commercial, thus NDPS Act Section 37's stricter provisions did not apply. Bail was granted on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with conditions including regular court attendance, non-tampering with witnesses, and restriction from leaving India during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
3rd Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Order
3rd Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 267/2026
CASE SUMMARY - Case No. 267/2026 The court granted regular bail to petitioner Mukeshkumar Bhikharam Premaram Bishnoi, who was arrested under NDPS Act sections 8(c), 22(b), and 29 for alleged drug peddling. The court found that while the charge sheet was filed, the petitioner's name appeared in the case primarily based on a co-accused's statement, which constitutes weak evidence. Notably, the seized quantity was intermediate, not commercial, thus NDPS Act Section 37's stricter provisions did not apply. Bail was granted on a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with conditions including regular court attendance, non-tampering with witnesses, and restriction from leaving India during trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts