AYAN ALIAS PANCHIYO AMINBHAI MULIYA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - D C THAKER — 174/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJJN010004782026

Filing Number

174/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

174/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203023241032

Police Station

JUNAGADH A DIVISION POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AYAN ALIAS PANCHIYO AMINBHAI MULIYA

    Adv. R D THAKER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - D C THAKER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court in Junagadh approved a 30-day bail petition for the accused (Ayan Urf Panchiya Aminbhai Muliya) in a case involving criminal intimidation, robbery, and organized crime under IPC sections 397, 399-402, and 34. The court granted bail considering that the accused's mother requires medical treatment in Ahmedabad, and the accused's father (a travel agency owner) can ensure his attendance and supervise his conduct during the interim period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District Judge

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 174/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court in Junagadh approved a 30-day bail petition for the accused (Ayan Urf Panchiya Aminbhai Muliya) in a case involving criminal intimidation, robbery, and organized crime under IPC sections 397, 399-402, and 34. The court granted bail considering that the accused's mother requires medical treatment in Ahmedabad, and the accused's father (a travel agency owner) can ensure his attendance and supervise his conduct during the interim period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case