DARSHAN AS KANO BHIKHUBHAI AMIPARA vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V N MADHAK — 54/2026

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

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJJN200001142026

Case disposed

Filing Number

54/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

54/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

Additional Court, Visavadar

Judge

1-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11203070250509

Police Station

VISAVADAR POLICE STATION - JUNAGADH DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 483
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 109(1),115(2),296(B),351(3),54
GUJARAT (BOMBAY) POLICE ACT, 1951 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

DARSHAN AS KANO BHIKHUBHAI AMIPARA

Adv. K B JOSHI

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - V N MADHAK

Hearing History

Judge: 1-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

12-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

ORDER

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court granted bail to the accused under Section 438 CrPC, modifying the earlier order dated 13-11-2025 that had rejected the bail application. The court found that while the accused faced serious charges under IPC Sections 109, 115, 296, 351, 54, and JP Act Section 135, the investigation was complete, chargesheet filed, and considering the accused's age (23 years), lack of prior criminal history, agricultural background, and family support, bail was warranted. The court imposed standard bail conditions and directed the accused to furnish bail bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted bail to the accused under Section 438 CrPC, modifying the earlier order dated 13-11-2025 that had rejected the bail application. The court found that while the accused faced serious charges under IPC Sections 109, 115, 296, 351, 54, and JP Act Section 135, the investigation was complete, chargesheet filed, and considering the accused's age (23 years), lack of prior criminal history, agricultural background, and family support, bail was warranted. The court imposed standard bail conditions and directed the accused to furnish bail bonds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Additional Court, Visavadar All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case