UTSAV ALIAS FATO MANUJI HARCHANDJI THAKOR vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - C B CHAUDHARI — 267/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJMH010007852026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
267/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
267/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA
Judge
6-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11206074250724
Police Station
VIJAPUR POLICE STATION- MEHSANA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
UTSAV ALIAS FATO MANUJI HARCHANDJI THAKOR
Adv. V R THAKOR
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - C B CHAUDHARI
Hearing History
Judge: 6-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge of Mahesana granted regular bail to the accused Utsav (also known as Fato), a 20-year-old laborer, in a criminal case involving theft of jewelry and cash worth ₹10,58,000. The court found that although serious charges under IPC sections 305(a), 331(1), 331(3), and 61(2)(k) were registered and the charge sheet had been filed, the accused was entitled to bail since the investigation was substantially complete, partial recovery had been made, and the accused was a local resident with family ties, posing no flight risk. The court imposed bail of ₹50,000 with a personal bond of equal amount, along with conditions including regular court attendance, non-tampering with evidence, and obtaining court permission before leaving India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge of Mahesana granted regular bail to the accused Utsav (also known as Fato), a 20-year-old laborer, in a criminal case involving theft of jewelry and cash worth ₹10,58,000. The court found that although serious charges under IPC sections 305(a), 331(1), 331(3), and 61(2)(k) were registered and the charge sheet had been filed, the accused was entitled to bail since the investigation was substantially complete, partial recovery had been made, and the accused was a local resident with family ties, posing no flight risk. The court imposed bail of ₹50,000 with a personal bond of equal amount, along with conditions including regular court attendance, non-tampering with evidence, and obtaining court permission before leaving India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts