CHANDANKUMAR AKSHAYANKUMAR MOHANTI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - N K PUROHIT — 180/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJJN010004912026
Filing Number
180/2026
Filing Date
07-03-2026
Registration No
180/2026
Registration Date
07-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH
Judge
13-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11203024250572
Police Station
JUNAGADH B DIVISION POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CHANDANKUMAR AKSHAYANKUMAR MOHANTI
Adv. N J DHAMANI
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - N K PUROHIT
Hearing History
Judge: 13-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
SUMMONS - NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 10-03-2026 | SUMMONS - NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Gujarat High Court (CRMA No. 180-26, decided March 13, 2026) dismissed bail petitions in a sim card fraud case involving multiple accused. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused defrauded customers by fraudulently registering sim cards in others' names and selling them for personal gain, constituting serious offenses under IPC sections 318, 316, 419, 336, 340, 54, and IT Act sections 66(c) and 42(3). Despite prosecution evidence and the grave nature of the crimes, the court rejected bail, emphasizing that the severity of fraud, nature of evidence, and risk of witness tampering warranted custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Gujarat High Court (CRMA No. 180-26, decided March 13, 2026) dismissed bail petitions in a sim card fraud case involving multiple accused. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused defrauded customers by fraudulently registering sim cards in others' names and selling them for personal gain, constituting serious offenses under IPC sections 318, 316, 419, 336, 340, 54, and IT Act sections 66(c) and 42(3). Despite prosecution evidence and the grave nature of the crimes, the court rejected bail, emphasizing that the severity of fraud, nature of evidence, and risk of witness tampering warranted custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts