DULABHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR GUARDIAN OF JUVENILE ACCUSED vs STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH AGP BHAVNAGAR Advocate - AGP — 368/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJBN010007132026

Filing Number

368/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

368/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Court

DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR

Judge

2-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

25

Police Station

PALITANA RURAL POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Indian Penal Code Section 377,323,506(2)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6,8,12

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DULABHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR GUARDIAN OF JUVENILE ACCUSED

    Adv. S Y HAMIRANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH AGP BHAVNAGAR Advocate - AGP

  2. 2.MINABEN DAUGHTER OF LAGHUBHAI NARANBHAI PARMAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court dismissed the petition seeking condonation of a 294-day delay in filing an appeal against a juvenile court order. The court held that the petitioner (guardian of the juvenile accused) failed to provide adequate justification for the delay and lacked proper legal representation during the trial, thus the delay could not be condoned under the prescribed legal framework. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Order

    3rd Addl District Judge

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Order

    3rd Addl District Judge

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  8. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 368/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the petition seeking condonation of a 294-day delay in filing an appeal against a juvenile court order. The court held that the petitioner (guardian of the juvenile accused) failed to provide adequate justification for the delay and lacked proper legal representation during the trial, thus the delay could not be condoned under the prescribed legal framework. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case