JAGDISHKUMAR UDHARAM RAJURAM CHARAN vs STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH AGP BHAVNAGAR Advocate - AGP — 315/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBN010006102026
Filing Number
315/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
315/2026
Registration Date
17-02-2026
Court
DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR
Judge
2-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198065260039
Police Station
VALLABHIPUR POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAGDISHKUMAR UDHARAM RAJURAM CHARAN
Adv. T H BORICHA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH AGP BHAVNAGAR Advocate - AGP
Hearing History
Judge: 2-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 07-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 25-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 19-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CRMA/315/2026 Decision: The court rejected the bail application of petitioner Jagdishkumar Udharam Rajuram Charan under BNS Section 483. The accused was arrested for illegal possession and transport of 3,040 bottles of foreign liquor worth ₹10,32,192 under IPC Sections 65(A)(i), 116(B), 98(2), 81, and 83. The court found a prima facie case existed, investigation was ongoing with co-accused still at large, and granted bail posed risks of witness tampering, evidence destruction, and repeated offenses given the serious nature of the offense and the accused's out-of-state residence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CRMA/315/2026 Decision: The court rejected the bail application of petitioner Jagdishkumar Udharam Rajuram Charan under BNS Section 483. The accused was arrested for illegal possession and transport of 3,040 bottles of foreign liquor worth ₹10,32,192 under IPC Sections 65(A)(i), 116(B), 98(2), 81, and 83. The court found a prima facie case existed, investigation was ongoing with co-accused still at large, and granted bail posed risks of witness tampering, evidence destruction, and repeated offenses given the serious nature of the offense and the accused's out-of-state residence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts