SAVITABEN ALIAS SHARMISHTHABEN WIFE OF CHANDRAKANTBHAI ALIAS SHAMBHU MOHANBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT — 303/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 439. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJKH010016502026
Filing Number
303/2026
Filing Date
13-Mar-2026
Registration No
303/2026
Registration Date
13-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD
Judge
5-4th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11204041260018
Police Station
MAHEMDAVAD POLICE STATION - KHEDA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SAVITABEN ALIAS SHARMISHTHABEN WIFE OF CHANDRAKANTBHAI ALIAS SHAMBHU MOHANBHAI PATEL
Adv. A T BAJPAI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - D R BAROT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Judegement
Case Summary: 303/2026 The 4th Additional Sessions Judge Kheda rejected Savitaben's bail application on March 24, 2026. She was accused of fraud involving government irrigation department land—allegedly concealing heirs in succession documents and selling land through false deeds to obtain Rs. 44,88,000, with Rs. 15,00,000 deposited in her account. The court found a prima facie case existed, investigation was ongoing, and release posed risks of absconding and evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
4th Addl District Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
Order
4th Addl District Judge
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
4th Addl District Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 303/2026
Case Summary: 303/2026 The 4th Additional Sessions Judge Kheda rejected Savitaben's bail application on March 24, 2026. She was accused of fraud involving government irrigation department land—allegedly concealing heirs in succession documents and selling land through false deeds to obtain Rs. 44,88,000, with Rs. 15,00,000 deposited in her account. The court found a prima facie case existed, investigation was ongoing, and release posed risks of absconding and evidence tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts