DURLABHBHAI BAVABHAI VAGHASIYA vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V N MADHAK — 52/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483(2). Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJJN200001052026

Filing Number

52/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

52/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Additional Court, Visavadar

Judge

1-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203007230266

Police Station

BHESAN POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483(2)
Indian Penal Code Section 302,120(B),201,114
Gujarat (Bombay) Police Act, 1951 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DURLABHBHAI BAVABHAI VAGHASIYA

    Adv. R B PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V N MADHAK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court rejected the petitioners' plea to set aside conditions imposed on their land release. The court found that serious criminal charges involving property disputes, family violence, and threats against witnesses provided valid grounds for the conditions restricting the accused from entering their village. The court declined to remove the restrictions, noting that the accused could pose risks to witnesses and the community if allowed unrestricted access to the village. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    4th Addl District Judge

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 52/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the petitioners' plea to set aside conditions imposed on their land release. The court found that serious criminal charges involving property disputes, family violence, and threats against witnesses provided valid grounds for the conditions restricting the accused from entering their village. The court declined to remove the restrictions, noting that the accused could pose risks to witnesses and the community if allowed unrestricted access to the village. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case