DHARMENDRAKUMAR ALIAS DHAMO VIJAYSINH NARVATSINH PARMAR vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT — 276/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJKH010014032026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

276/2026

Filing Date

06-03-2026

Registration No

276/2026

Registration Date

06-03-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

6-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

17th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204021250675

Police Station

DAKOR POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 439,
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 483,
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 137(2),87,64(2)(m),65(1),
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012 Section 3(a),4,5(L),6,18,

Petitioner(s)

DHARMENDRAKUMAR ALIAS DHAMO VIJAYSINH NARVATSINH PARMAR

Adv. S S AMALIYAR

Respondent(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT

Hearing History

Judge: 6-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

17-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

HEARING

11-03-2026

HEARING

09-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

17-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court rejected the bail application of a 21-year-old accused charged with sexual assault against a 15-year-old minor under POCSO Act and BNS sections. The judge held that the gravity of the offense, the minor status of the victim, the accused's prima facie involvement, and societal interest warranted denial of bail, citing Supreme Court precedents that discretion should not favor accused in such heinous offenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the bail application of a 21-year-old accused charged with sexual assault against a 15-year-old minor under POCSO Act and BNS sections. The judge held that the gravity of the offense, the minor status of the victim, the accused's prima facie involvement, and societal interest warranted denial of bail, citing Supreme Court precedents that discretion should not favor accused in such heinous offenses. 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 NADIAD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case