IMTIYAZ ALIAS BAPU S/O KARIMSHA ALIAS DILAVARBHAI HASAMSHA RAFAI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - N K PUROHIT — 176/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJJN010004802026
Filing Number
176/2026
Filing Date
06-Mar-2026
Registration No
176/2026
Registration Date
06-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH
Judge
3-6th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11203023260132
Police Station
JUNAGADH A DIVISION POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.IMTIYAZ ALIAS BAPU S/O KARIMSHA ALIAS DILAVARBHAI HASAMSHA RAFAI
Adv. D N APARNATHI
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - N K PUROHIT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Judegement
Summary of CRMA No. 176-2026 The court rejected the petitioner Imtiyaz's plea for regular bail in a criminal case involving charges under IPC Sections 137(2), 87, 75(2), 351(3), and POSCO Act Section 12. The petitioner was accused of sexually abusing a 16-year-old minor girl, luring her with marriage promises, and fleeing. The court found sufficient evidence of the crime, noted the ongoing investigation, and determined that granting bail could deter witnesses and allow the accused to influence evidence. The bail application was accordingly dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
6th Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Order
6th Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
6th Addl District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Process To Respondents
6th Addl District Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 176/2026
Summary of CRMA No. 176-2026 The court rejected the petitioner Imtiyaz's plea for regular bail in a criminal case involving charges under IPC Sections 137(2), 87, 75(2), 351(3), and POSCO Act Section 12. The petitioner was accused of sexually abusing a 16-year-old minor girl, luring her with marriage promises, and fleeing. The court found sufficient evidence of the crime, noted the ongoing investigation, and determined that granting bail could deter witnesses and allow the accused to influence evidence. The bail application was accordingly dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts