KARSHANBHAI MANSENGBHAI RAJPUT vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V A GANDHI — 145/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBK230004672026
Filing Number
145/2026
Filing Date
09-Mar-2026
Registration No
145/2026
Registration Date
09-Mar-2026
Court
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THARAD
Judge
1-Addl.district & Sessions Judge
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996005250242
Police Station
SUIGAM POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KARSHANBHAI MANSENGBHAI RAJPUT
Adv. A B RAJPUT
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V A GANDHI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Tharad rejected the anticipatory bail application of Karshanbhai Mansengbhai Rajput in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case involving 3,744 bottles of illicit liquor valued at ₹10,10,448. The court found prima facie evidence of the applicant's active involvement as a business partner who coordinated the liquor trafficking through phone calls with the driver, noted his history as a habitual offender in 7 prior cases, and rejected his parity argument since he remained absconded for 4+ months unlike co-accused who were released. The court determined custodial interrogation was necessary and that bail release posed a flight risk and danger of reoffending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 145/2026
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Tharad rejected the anticipatory bail application of Karshanbhai Mansengbhai Rajput in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case involving 3,744 bottles of illicit liquor valued at ₹10,10,448. The court found prima facie evidence of the applicant's active involvement as a business partner who coordinated the liquor trafficking through phone calls with the driver, noted his history as a habitual offender in 7 prior cases, and rejected his parity argument since he remained absconded for 4+ months unlike co-accused who were released. The court determined custodial interrogation was necessary and that bail release posed a flight risk and danger of reoffending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts