MITESHKUMAR HARIRAMDAS SADHU vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - A S MAKWANA — 252/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJMH010007412026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
252/2026
Filing Date
28-02-2026
Registration No
252/2026
Registration Date
28-02-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA
Judge
3-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11206020260116
Police Station
KADI POLICE STATION- MEHSANA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MITESHKUMAR HARIRAMDAS SADHU
Adv. B S PANCHAL
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - A S MAKWANA
Hearing History
Judge: 3-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 05-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Court Decision The Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Miteshkumar Hariramdas Sadhu (CRMA(S) No. 252/2026). The court found that the accused, posing as a fake lawyer named "Avinash Rawal," engaged in an elaborate fraud scheme involving forged legal documents and impersonation, defrauding multiple victims of approximately ₹3.27 lakhs through intimidation and false promises. The court determined this was a serious socio-economic crime requiring custodial investigation and applied established legal principles that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, finding no such circumstances present here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary of Court Decision The Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Miteshkumar Hariramdas Sadhu (CRMA(S) No. 252/2026). The court found that the accused, posing as a fake lawyer named "Avinash Rawal," engaged in an elaborate fraud scheme involving forged legal documents and impersonation, defrauding multiple victims of approximately ₹3.27 lakhs through intimidation and false promises. The court determined this was a serious socio-economic crime requiring custodial investigation and applied established legal principles that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances, finding no such circumstances present here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts