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.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJBK180005702026

Filing Number

173/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

173/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, Deesa

Judge

3-6th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 06-May-2026

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)

  1. 1.GANPATRAM KISHANRAM VISHNOI

    Adv. K R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - C G RAJPUT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    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.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    6th Addl District Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Order

    6th Addl District Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 173/2026

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case