HANSAJI ALIAS HASMUKH ASHAJI LAXMANJI VANZARA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 400/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJGN010009242026
Filing Number
398/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
400/2026
Registration Date
11-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT, GANDHINAGAR
Judge
3-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11191008240775
Police Station
CHANDKHEDA POLICE STATION - GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HANSAJI ALIAS HASMUKH ASHAJI LAXMANJI VANZARA
Adv. P M MAHETA
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of CRMA No. 400/2026 The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, dismissed the petitioner Hansaji (Hasmukh Ashaji) Vanzara's petition for release on regular bail. The court found that the accused faced serious charges including murder and criminal intimidation under IPC sections 103(2), 109(1), 118(1)-(2), 179(4), 190, 191(3), 351(3), 286(b), 324(6), 126(2), 3(5), 81(2)(s)-(b), and 135, relating to an alleged extrajudicial killing. Given the gravity of the charges supported by witness evidence and documentary proof including CCTV footage, the court held bail was neither appropriate nor just, citing precedent that in cases with serious allegations, bail cannot be granted when witnesses and evidence suggest the accused's involvement in grave crimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of CRMA No. 400/2026 The 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, dismissed the petitioner Hansaji (Hasmukh Ashaji) Vanzara's petition for release on regular bail. The court found that the accused faced serious charges including murder and criminal intimidation under IPC sections 103(2), 109(1), 118(1)-(2), 179(4), 190, 191(3), 351(3), 286(b), 324(6), 126(2), 3(5), 81(2)(s)-(b), and 135, relating to an alleged extrajudicial killing. Given the gravity of the charges supported by witness evidence and documentary proof including CCTV footage, the court held bail was neither appropriate nor just, citing precedent that in cases with serious allegations, bail cannot be granted when witnesses and evidence suggest the accused's involvement in grave crimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts