BASIR AHEMAD RASULMIYA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 362/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJGN010008002026

Filing Number

360/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

362/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT, GANDHINAGAR

Judge

2-5th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20(B),8(C),29

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BASIR AHEMAD RASULMIYA

    Adv. V S VAGHELA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court rejected the temporary bail application of Basir Ahenad Rasulmiya Shaikh, a 70-year-old accused in a serious NDPS case involving 10.556 kg of charas (hashish). The court found that while the applicant cited health issues and family responsibilities, the serious nature of the charges, his prior 10-year NDPS conviction, involvement of family members in trafficking, and risk of absconding outweighed these grounds, and no medical documentation was provided to substantiate his ailments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    5th Addl District Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 362/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the temporary bail application of Basir Ahenad Rasulmiya Shaikh, a 70-year-old accused in a serious NDPS case involving 10.556 kg of charas (hashish). The court found that while the applicant cited health issues and family responsibilities, the serious nature of the charges, his prior 10-year NDPS conviction, involvement of family members in trafficking, and risk of absconding outweighed these grounds, and no medical documentation was provided to substantiate his ailments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case