JAYDIPBHAI DINESHBHAI DABHI THAKOR vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 102/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 27th May 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJKT080008602026

Filing Number

102/2026

Filing Date

26-May-2026

Registration No

102/2026

Registration Date

26-May-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, RAPAR

Judge

2-Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

27-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 18-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11993005260152

Police Station

ADESAR POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JAYDIPBHAI DINESHBHAI DABHI THAKOR

    Adv. N A GARVA

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-May-2026

    Order

  3. 27-May-2026

    Order

    The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application filed by Jaydipbhai Dineshbhai Dabhi Thakor seeking bail/release on bond. The court found that the charges against the petitioner—involving possession of contraband liquor worth ₹1,23,102 and violations under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 (carrying up to 10 years imprisonment)—were sufficiently serious, and therefore bail was not warranted at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 27-May-2026

    Disposed

    Addi CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 26-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 26-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 102/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous application filed by Jaydipbhai Dineshbhai Dabhi Thakor seeking bail/release on bond. The court found that the charges against the petitioner—involving possession of contraband liquor worth ₹1,23,102 and violations under the Gujarat Prohibition Act 1949 (carrying up to 10 years imprisonment)—were sufficiently serious, and therefore bail was not warranted at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case