KAMLESHBHAI JETHALAL(JETHABHAI) SOLANKI vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R D JOSHI — 132/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBK230004372026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
132/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
132/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THARAD
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996006250910
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KAMLESHBHAI JETHALAL(JETHABHAI) SOLANKI
Adv. R K GADHAVI
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R D JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 07-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 05-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Tharad, Banaskantha rejected the regular bail application of Kamleshbhai Jethalal Solanki, accused in a murder case. The court found substantial evidence including CCTV footage, call detail records, and the prosecution's allegations that the applicant conspired to murder the deceased by paying Rs. 20 lakhs to co-accused persons. The court rejected the applicant's contentions regarding procedural lapses and determined that material witnesses remain to be examined, creating a risk of witness tampering if bail were granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Tharad, Banaskantha rejected the regular bail application of Kamleshbhai Jethalal Solanki, accused in a murder case. The court found substantial evidence including CCTV footage, call detail records, and the prosecution's allegations that the applicant conspired to murder the deceased by paying Rs. 20 lakhs to co-accused persons. The court rejected the applicant's contentions regarding procedural lapses and determined that material witnesses remain to be examined, creating a risk of witness tampering if bail were granted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts