HANIF SALEH MOHMAD TALU vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH A.G.P Advocate - AGP — 125/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJKT150003222026
Filing Number
125/2026
Filing Date
23-02-2026
Registration No
125/2026
Registration Date
23-02-2026
Court
ADJ COURT, GANDHIDHAM
Judge
11-9th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11993007260121
Police Station
GANDHIDHAM POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
HANIF SALEH MOHMAD TALU
Adv. V K DAVE
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH A.G.P Advocate - AGP
Hearing History
Judge: 11-9th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 03-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 27-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham rejected the anticipatory bail application of Hanif Saleh Mohammad Talu, accused of serious economic offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery involving crores of rupees in export-import transactions. The court found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the business transactions under investigation and held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace financial trails and unearth the alleged conspiracy, determining that granting bail would risk evidence tampering and investigation obstruction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham rejected the anticipatory bail application of Hanif Saleh Mohammad Talu, accused of serious economic offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery involving crores of rupees in export-import transactions. The court found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the business transactions under investigation and held that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace financial trails and unearth the alleged conspiracy, determining that granting bail would risk evidence tampering and investigation obstruction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts