SHAMBHUSINH JAGATSINH RATHOD vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - M R PATEL — 42/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJKH180001872026

Filing Number

42/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

42/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Court

Addl. District Court,Kapadvanj

Judge

1-Addl. District Judge

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 16-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAMBHUSINH JAGATSINH RATHOD

    Adv. A V PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - M R PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary In CRMA No. 42/2026, the Kapadvanj (Kheda) court in Gujarat approved a regular bail application for accused persons charged with illegal liquor manufacturing and distribution under the Prohibition Act and IPC sections 65(e), 65(a), 116, 81, 83, 88(2), and other provisions. The court found that while cognizable offenses were registered, the accused had been in custody during investigation and bail was justified as the investigation was in preliminary stages. The court granted bail with conditions including surrender of seized vehicle documents and personal bonds, emphasizing that continued detention was neither legally justified nor necessary to prevent further offenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge

  4. 03-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 42/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In CRMA No. 42/2026, the Kapadvanj (Kheda) court in Gujarat approved a regular bail application for accused persons charged with illegal liquor manufacturing and distribution under the Prohibition Act and IPC sections 65(e), 65(a), 116, 81, 83, 88(2), and other provisions. The court found that while cognizable offenses were registered, the accused had been in custody during investigation and bail was justified as the investigation was in preliminary stages. The court granted bail with conditions including surrender of seized vehicle documents and personal bonds, emphasizing that continued detention was neither legally justified nor necessary to prevent further offenses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case