GANPATRAM KISHANRAM VISHNOI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - C G RAJPUT — 173/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJBK180005702026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

173/2026

Filing Date

07-03-2026

Registration No

173/2026

Registration Date

07-03-2026

Court

ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, Deesa

Judge

3-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

66

Police Station

THARA POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 482,
GUJARAT (BOMBAY) PROHIBITION ACT, 1949 Section 65(A)(E),116(B),98(2),81,

Petitioner(s)

GANPATRAM KISHANRAM VISHNOI

Adv. K R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

Government of Gujarat Advocate - C G RAJPUT

Hearing History

Judge: 3-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

17-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

ORDER

10-03-2026

REPLY OF RESPONDENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Summary: The 6th Additional District Judge at Deesa rejected the regular bail application of Ganpatram Kishanram Vishnoi, who was accused of liquor transportation under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The court found that the applicant had absconded for 8-9 years and, applying Supreme Court precedents on bail considerations (including nature of offense, gravity of charges, and risk of flight), determined there was no grounds to grant relief and rejected the application with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The 6th Additional District Judge at Deesa rejected the regular bail application of Ganpatram Kishanram Vishnoi, who was accused of liquor transportation under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The court found that the applicant had absconded for 8-9 years and, applying Supreme Court precedents on bail considerations (including nature of offense, gravity of charges, and risk of flight), determined there was no grounds to grant relief and rejected the application with costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, Deesa All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case