PAPPU RATAN MANGILAL CHAUHAN (CHAMAR) vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT — 262/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJKH010013402026

Filing Number

262/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

262/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

6-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 16-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)(e),83,81,98(2),116-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PAPPU RATAN MANGILAL CHAUHAN (CHAMAR)

    Adv. A V PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Order

    The court rejected Pappu Ratan Mangilal Chauhan's bail application for alleged Prohibition Act violations involving contraband liquor worth Rs. 93,31,200. The judge found a strong prima facie case against the accused, noting risks of absconding, repeat offenses, witness tampering, and investigation obstruction given that co-accused remain absconded and no new circumstances had emerged since the previous rejected bail application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    3rd Addl District Judge

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 262/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected Pappu Ratan Mangilal Chauhan's bail application for alleged Prohibition Act violations involving contraband liquor worth Rs. 93,31,200. The judge found a strong prima facie case against the accused, noting risks of absconding, repeat offenses, witness tampering, and investigation obstruction given that co-accused remain absconded and no new circumstances had emerged since the previous rejected bail application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case