SAMIT URFE BHURO DINESHBHAI KAPADI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - N K PUROHIT — 165/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJJN010004572026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
165/2026
Filing Date
03-03-2026
Registration No
165/2026
Registration Date
03-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH
Judge
3-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SAMIT URFE BHURO DINESHBHAI KAPADI
Adv. Y M THAKOR
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - N K PUROHIT
Hearing History
Judge: 3-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 03-03-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Sixth Additional Sessions Court, Junagadh granted bail to the accused under IPC Section 437, ordering his release on regular bail regarding a case registered under IPC Sections 8(c), 20(b)(2), and 29 NDPS Act. The court found that while the accused was arrested with contraband (cannabis weighing 3.75 kg), considering his young age, local residence, ongoing investigation, and absence of serious prior criminal history, detention was not necessary. The court balanced the gravity of drug trafficking offenses against mitigating factors favoring bail release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Sixth Additional Sessions Court, Junagadh granted bail to the accused under IPC Section 437, ordering his release on regular bail regarding a case registered under IPC Sections 8(c), 20(b)(2), and 29 NDPS Act. The court found that while the accused was arrested with contraband (cannabis weighing 3.75 kg), considering his young age, local residence, ongoing investigation, and absence of serious prior criminal history, detention was not necessary. The court balanced the gravity of drug trafficking offenses against mitigating factors favoring bail release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts