ALPESHBHAI BHIMABHAI MAGHAD vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - N K PUROHIT — 170/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 20th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJJN010004692026
Filing Number
170/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
170/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH
Judge
3-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11203023260147
Police Station
JUNAGADH A DIVISION POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ALPESHBHAI BHIMABHAI MAGHAD
Adv. S K MEHTA
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - N K PUROHIT
Hearing History
Judge: 3-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 13-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 07-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
CRMA No. 170-26 Summary Court Decision: The court granted bail to petitioner Alpeshbhai Bhimabhai Maghad in connection with FIR under IPC Sections 308(4), 125(a), 131, 115(2), 74, 286(b), and 351(3) by releasing him on regular bail for a land-related offense. Key Reasoning: The court found that while serious allegations existed regarding assault, intimidation, and threats to witnesses, the evidence and nature of charges did not warrant continued detention. The petitioner's stable residence in Gujarat and the investigation's advancement justified bail, balancing public interest with the accused's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CRMA No. 170-26 Summary Court Decision: The court granted bail to petitioner Alpeshbhai Bhimabhai Maghad in connection with FIR under IPC Sections 308(4), 125(a), 131, 115(2), 74, 286(b), and 351(3) by releasing him on regular bail for a land-related offense. Key Reasoning: The court found that while serious allegations existed regarding assault, intimidation, and threats to witnesses, the evidence and nature of charges did not warrant continued detention. The petitioner's stable residence in Gujarat and the investigation's advancement justified bail, balancing public interest with the accused's rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts