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
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
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
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 17-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts