SOYAB UMARBHAI JAM vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - AGP — 278/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLI- SESSIONS

CNR: GJMR010005472026

Filing Number

278/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

278/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT,MORBI

Judge

3-Addl.district & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 05-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

4

Police Station

WANKANER CITY POLICE STATION - MORBI DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SOYAB UMARBHAI JAM

    Adv. R K KOBIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - AGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, rejected the bail application of Soyab Umarbhai Jam, who was accused of illegal possession and transportation of 4,944 bottles of prohibited liquor worth Rs. 8,10,480 under the Prohibition Act. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of the applicant's active involvement in the offense and held that the seriousness of the violation of prohibition laws and the large quantity of contraband recovered outweighed mitigating factors like his clean record and family dependence, ruling that mere filing of the chargesheet alone cannot warrant bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 278/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, rejected the bail application of Soyab Umarbhai Jam, who was accused of illegal possession and transportation of 4,944 bottles of prohibited liquor worth Rs. 8,10,480 under the Prohibition Act. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of the applicant's active involvement in the offense and held that the seriousness of the violation of prohibition laws and the large quantity of contraband recovered outweighed mitigating factors like his clean record and family dependence, ruling that mere filing of the chargesheet alone cannot warrant bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case