BHIKHABHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT — 256/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJKH010013072026
Filing Number
256/2026
Filing Date
28-Feb-2026
Registration No
256/2026
Registration Date
28-Feb-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD
Judge
5-4th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204041260018
Police Station
MAHEMDAVAD POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHIKHABHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL
Adv. A T BAJPAI
-
2.GHANSHYAMGIRI BALGIRI GOSAI
Adv. A T BAJPAI
-
3.MAHESHKUMAR NATUBHAI PATEL
Adv. A T BAJPAI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda rejected the bail application of three applicants accused of defrauding the Irrigation Department through false land documents and obtaining ₹44,88,000 in illegal compensation. The court found a prima facie case established against the applicants, who allegedly signed as witnesses on false pedigree documents, and determined that ongoing investigation requires their continued custodial interrogation, with risk of absconding if released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
4th Addl District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
Order
4th Addl District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Hearing
4th Addl District Judge
-
03-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 256/2026
Court Decision Summary The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda rejected the bail application of three applicants accused of defrauding the Irrigation Department through false land documents and obtaining ₹44,88,000 in illegal compensation. The court found a prima facie case established against the applicants, who allegedly signed as witnesses on false pedigree documents, and determined that ongoing investigation requires their continued custodial interrogation, with risk of absconding if released. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts