VIPULBHAI BABUBHAI DESAI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 397/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJGN010009062026
Filing Number
395/2026
Filing Date
10-03-2026
Registration No
397/2026
Registration Date
10-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT, GANDHINAGAR
Judge
3-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
16
Police Station
ACB POLICE STATION - GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VIPULBHAI BABUBHAI DESAI
Adv. D J SHAH
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: CRMA No. 397/2026 Court Decision: The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar granted the petitioner's application and ordered release of regular bail for land-related charges under IPC Sections 7, 12, 13(1), and 13(2) and Indian Penal Code Section 343. Key Reasoning: The court found that while the petitioner faced serious accusations of demanding illegal gratification (₹3 crores) while serving as an armed police constable, and later receiving ₹30 lakhs through coercion, the investigation was largely complete with a charge sheet filed. Applying the *Anilkumar Yadav v. State of Delhi* precedent, the court determined that regular bail was justified as the petitioner had strong prima facie defenses and no grounds existed to believe he would obstruct justice or abscond. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CRMA No. 397/2026 Court Decision: The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar granted the petitioner's application and ordered release of regular bail for land-related charges under IPC Sections 7, 12, 13(1), and 13(2) and Indian Penal Code Section 343. Key Reasoning: The court found that while the petitioner faced serious accusations of demanding illegal gratification (₹3 crores) while serving as an armed police constable, and later receiving ₹30 lakhs through coercion, the investigation was largely complete with a charge sheet filed. Applying the *Anilkumar Yadav v. State of Delhi* precedent, the court determined that regular bail was justified as the petitioner had strong prima facie defenses and no grounds existed to believe he would obstruct justice or abscond. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts