KARSHAN URFE KISHAN MURAJI MERIYA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - D J THACKER — 672/2026

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: GJKT010021472026

Filing Number

672/2026

Filing Date

22-May-2026

Registration No

672/2026

Registration Date

22-May-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ

Judge

29-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

27-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 18-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11205044240479

Police Station

BHUJ TALUKA PADHDHAR POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KARSHAN URFE KISHAN MURAJI MERIYA

    Adv. R S GADHVI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - D J THACKER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-May-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The 4th Additional Sessions Judge in Bhuj dismissed the petitioner Karshan Urfe Kishan Muraji Meriya's application for bail on land-related grounds. The court found that while the petitioner had previously obtained bail six times in one year on the same grounds, his current application lacked merit as the underlying criminal charges—involving serious offenses under IPC sections 103, 115, 117, 351, 189, 190, 191, and 135 of the IPC—remained substantial and the investigative report substantiated the accusations. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the petitioner was remanded in custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-May-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 26-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 22-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 672/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The 4th Additional Sessions Judge in Bhuj dismissed the petitioner Karshan Urfe Kishan Muraji Meriya's application for bail on land-related grounds. The court found that while the petitioner had previously obtained bail six times in one year on the same grounds, his current application lacked merit as the underlying criminal charges—involving serious offenses under IPC sections 103, 115, 117, 351, 189, 190, 191, and 135 of the IPC—remained substantial and the investigative report substantiated the accusations. Consequently, the bail application was rejected and the petitioner was remanded in custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case