DILIPBHAI LALAJIBHAI SANKHAT vs Govt. of Gujarat Advocate - M K GOHEL — 52/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC.APPLI - SESSIONS
CNR: GJGS030001232026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
52/2026
Filing Date
28-02-2026
Registration No
52/2026
Registration Date
28-02-2026
Court
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, UNA
Judge
2-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11186008260318
Police Station
UNA POLICE STATION - GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DILIPBHAI LALAJIBHAI SANKHAT
Adv. H B JAMANI
Respondent(s)
Govt. of Gujarat Advocate - M K GOHEL
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
ORDER
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 09-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 07-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Gir-Somnath rejected the bail application of Dilipbhai Laljibhai Sankhat, accused of rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. The court found prima facie evidence of serious charges involving repeated sexual assault, threat to circulate intimate photographs, and death threats spanning five months, coupled with the victim's credible corroborating statement before the magistrate. The court prioritized societal interest and women's safety over the accused's personal liberty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Gir-Somnath rejected the bail application of Dilipbhai Laljibhai Sankhat, accused of rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita. The court found prima facie evidence of serious charges involving repeated sexual assault, threat to circulate intimate photographs, and death threats spanning five months, coupled with the victim's credible corroborating statement before the magistrate. The court prioritized societal interest and women's safety over the accused's personal liberty. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts