KRUNAL ALIAS GUDDU RAJESHBHAI PARMAR vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - J J GOHIL — 94/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJNR010002262026
Filing Number
94/2026
Filing Date
03-Mar-2026
Registration No
94/2026
Registration Date
03-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT RAJPIPLA
Judge
1-Principal District & Sessions Judge
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 02-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
1654
Police Station
SAGBARA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KRUNAL ALIAS GUDDU RAJESHBHAI PARMAR
Adv. M I KALAIWALA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - J J GOHIL
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary: The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Narmada rejected Krunal alias Guddu Rajeshbhai Parmar's bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for alleged offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (transporting illicit liquor worth Rs. 96,000 without permit). Although the applicant argued parity with his co-accused who was granted bail, the court held that the applicant had five prior criminal cases compared to the co-accused's single antecedent, making him ineligible for bail on parity grounds. The court found no mandatory provision requiring bail upon charge-sheet filing and rejected the application considering the gravity of the offence and the applicant's criminal history. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Process To Respondents
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 94/2026
Summary: The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Narmada rejected Krunal alias Guddu Rajeshbhai Parmar's bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for alleged offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act (transporting illicit liquor worth Rs. 96,000 without permit). Although the applicant argued parity with his co-accused who was granted bail, the court held that the applicant had five prior criminal cases compared to the co-accused's single antecedent, making him ineligible for bail on parity grounds. The court found no mandatory provision requiring bail upon charge-sheet filing and rejected the application considering the gravity of the offence and the applicant's criminal history. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts