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
Filing Number
286/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
286/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD
Judge
6-3rd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204040260100
Police Station
MATAR POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRAVINSINH SHIVASINH RATHOD
Adv. M K SHAH
-
2.URVASHIBEN PRAVINSINH RATHOD
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT, K B SONI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
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.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
3rd Addl District Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 286/2026
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.
Explore other courts