KANA NATHABHAI BORKHATARIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT SUMMONS THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER Advocate - N K PUROHIT — 191/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJJN010005262026

Case disposed

Filing Number

191/2026

Filing Date

11-03-2026

Registration No

191/2026

Registration Date

11-03-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH

Judge

13-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

18th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203025260100

Police Station

JUNAGADH TALUKA POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

KANA NATHABHAI BORKHATARIYA

Adv. J R JOSHI

Respondent(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT SUMMONS THROUGH GOVERNMENT PLEADER Advocate - N K PUROHIT

Hearing History

Judge: 13-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

18-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

ORDER

16-03-2026

HEARING

13-03-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

11-03-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court rejected the accused's bail petition in a serious criminal case involving theft of gold jewelry and cash. The court found that the accused faced strong prima facie charges of theft under Indian Penal Code sections 305(A), 331(3), and 331(4), with evidence suggesting involvement in grave offenses warranting imprisonment. While applying established bail principles balancing individual liberty against justice administration, the court determined that granting bail would pose risks of witness tampering, flight, and obstruction of proceedings, therefore denying the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the accused's bail petition in a serious criminal case involving theft of gold jewelry and cash. The court found that the accused faced strong prima facie charges of theft under Indian Penal Code sections 305(A), 331(3), and 331(4), with evidence suggesting involvement in grave offenses warranting imprisonment. While applying established bail principles balancing individual liberty against justice administration, the court determined that granting bail would pose risks of witness tampering, flight, and obstruction of proceedings, therefore denying the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case