PRAJAPATI ARVINDBHAI RAMANBHAI KESHABHAI vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R K JOSHI — 259/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJMH010007632026

Filing Number

259/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

259/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA

Judge

5-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11206045260091

Police Station

B DIVISION POLICE STATION - MAHESANA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316(2),318(4),54

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRAJAPATI ARVINDBHAI RAMANBHAI KESHABHAI

    Adv. S S GADHAVI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - R K JOSHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The Additional Sessions Court in Mehsana rejected the bail application of accused Prajapati Arvindabhai Ramanbhai under BNS Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 344. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused hired a vehicle through fraud, pledged it to a third party for ₹3 lakh without the owner's knowledge, and betrayed the complainant's trust—constituting serious criminal charges that warranted continued judicial custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 259/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional Sessions Court in Mehsana rejected the bail application of accused Prajapati Arvindabhai Ramanbhai under BNS Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 344. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused hired a vehicle through fraud, pledged it to a third party for ₹3 lakh without the owner's knowledge, and betrayed the complainant's trust—constituting serious criminal charges that warranted continued judicial 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