PRAVINSINH SHIVASINH RATHOD vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT, K B SONI — 286/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJKH010015022026

Case disposed

Filing Number

286/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

286/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

6-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204040260100

Police Station

MATAR POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 108,85

Petitioner(s)

PRAVINSINH SHIVASINH RATHOD

Adv. M K SHAH

URVASHIBEN PRAVINSINH RATHOD

Respondent(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT, K B SONI

Hearing History

Judge: 6-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

24-03-2026

Disposed

20-03-2026

HEARING

18-03-2026

HEARING

16-03-2026

HEARING

12-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court rejected the bail application of Pravinsinh Shivasinh Rathod and Urvashiben Pravinsinh Rathod, who are accused under Sections 108 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in connection with a woman's suicide by drowning in a canal along with her child. The court found the allegations serious, noted the investigation was ongoing, and determined there were risks of witness intimidation and flight from justice, making continued custody appropriate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the bail application of Pravinsinh Shivasinh Rathod and Urvashiben Pravinsinh Rathod, who are accused under Sections 108 and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in connection with a woman's suicide by drowning in a canal along with her child. The court found the allegations serious, noted the investigation was ongoing, and determined there were risks of witness intimidation and flight from justice, making continued custody appropriate. 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