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
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
145/2026
Filing Date
09-03-2026
Registration No
145/2026
Registration Date
09-03-2026
Court
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THARAD
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996005250242
Police Station
SUIGAM POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KARSHANBHAI MANSENGBHAI RAJPUT
Adv. A B RAJPUT
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V A GANDHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts