PRAKSHBHAI BABUBHAI MAKVANA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - D R TRIVEDI — 320/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJJM010009372026
Filing Number
320/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
320/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JANMAGAR
Judge
1-Principal District & Sessions Judge
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11202013240140
Police Station
SETHVADALA POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRAKSHBHAI BABUBHAI MAKVANA
Adv. H M BHATT
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - D R TRIVEDI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: 320/2026 The Sessions Court, Jamnagar rejected petitioner Prakshbhai Babubhai Makvana's application for bail under BNS Section 483. The petitioner sought bail on grounds that he needed to care for his seriously ill brother, claiming his parents, wife, and brother's wife could not adequately provide care. However, the court found that the brother's care could be managed by these family members without the petitioner's presence, and the petitioner failed to establish compelling reasons or provide necessary financial arrangements for his bail. The court consequently dismissed the bail application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Hearing
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Process To Respondents
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 320/2026
Case Summary: 320/2026 The Sessions Court, Jamnagar rejected petitioner Prakshbhai Babubhai Makvana's application for bail under BNS Section 483. The petitioner sought bail on grounds that he needed to care for his seriously ill brother, claiming his parents, wife, and brother's wife could not adequately provide care. However, the court found that the brother's care could be managed by these family members without the petitioner's presence, and the petitioner failed to establish compelling reasons or provide necessary financial arrangements for his bail. The court consequently dismissed the bail application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts