PARVEJ URFE PRAVESH GHANSHYAM SHARMA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 670/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 27th May 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC APPL - SESSIONS

CNR: GJKT010021452026

Filing Number

670/2026

Filing Date

22-May-2026

Registration No

670/2026

Registration Date

22-May-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ

Judge

26-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

27-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 18-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

5087

Police Station

BHUJ CITY A DIVISION POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

1.PARVEJ URFE PRAVESH GHANSHYAM SHARMA

Adv. L.A.D.C.

Respondent(s)

1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
27-May-2026

OrderView PDF

Case 670/2026 Summary The Third Additional Sessions Court of Kutch rejected the petitioner Parvej Ghanshyam Sharma's bail application in a Prohibition Act case. The court found that the petitioner had evaded arrest from 2016-2025, had a regular bail application previously rejected, and faced serious charges under the Prohibition Act. Although the petitioner cited medical treatment needs and financial hardship for family expenses, the court determined that granting interim bail posed a flight risk and was unjustified given the case's gravity and the petitioner's history of absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
27-May-2026

Disposed

3rd Addl District Judge
26-May-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
22-May-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 670/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 670/2026 Summary The Third Additional Sessions Court of Kutch rejected the petitioner Parvej Ghanshyam Sharma's bail application in a Prohibition Act case. The court found that the petitioner had evaded arrest from 2016-2025, had a regular bail application previously rejected, and faced serious charges under the Prohibition Act. Although the petitioner cited medical treatment needs and financial hardship for family expenses, the court determined that granting interim bail posed a flight risk and was unjustified given the case's gravity and the petitioner's history of absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.