SANKETKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT — 287/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 20th March 2026.

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJKH010015292026

Case disposed

Filing Number

287/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

287/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

3-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

20th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11204067260121

Police Station

SEVALIYA POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 438
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69

Petitioner(s)

SANKETKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR

Adv. M P DHANEKAR

Respondent(s)

STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT

Hearing History

Judge: 3-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

20-03-2026

Disposed

18-03-2026

HEARING

17-03-2026

HEARING

16-03-2026

HEARING

12-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

20-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

The court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Sanketkumar Babubhai Parmar in a case involving allegations of criminal intimidation, breach of trust, and sexual misconduct toward a woman. The court found that the petitioner had betrayed the complainant's trust, made financial and inappropriate demands, engaged in premarital sexual relations, and subsequently abandoned the woman when she sought to marry him. The court determined that since the investigation was ongoing, custodial interrogation was necessary, and the petitioner's failure to cooperate with authorities and his absconding behavior made him ineligible for anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 438. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Sanketkumar Babubhai Parmar in a case involving allegations of criminal intimidation, breach of trust, and sexual misconduct toward a woman. The court found that the petitioner had betrayed the complainant's trust, made financial and inappropriate demands, engaged in premarital sexual relations, and subsequently abandoned the woman when she sought to marry him. The court determined that since the investigation was ongoing, custodial interrogation was necessary, and the petitioner's failure to cooperate with authorities and his absconding behavior made him ineligible for anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 438. 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