DHARMESHBHAI MANOJBHAI HALPATI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - PP — 268/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINALMISCAPPLICATIONSESSION

CNR: GJNV010006632026

Filing Number

268/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

268/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT, NAVSARI

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11822009260228

Police Station

CHIKHLI POLICE STATION - NAVSARI DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482

Petitioner(s)

1.DHARMESHBHAI MANOJBHAI HALPATI

Adv. M A BHAVSAR

Respondent(s)

1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - PP (Public Prosecutor)

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
09-Mar-2026

JudegementView PDF

Summary The Principal District & Sessions Court at Navsari granted bail to Dharmeshbhai Manojbhai Halpati under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a criminal case involving seized liquor and a vehicle. The court found no substantive evidence against the applicant and determined that his continued custody was unnecessary, imposing conditions including regular police station reporting, fixed residence disclosure, and non-absconding undertakings to ensure his appearance during trial proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
09-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal District & Sessions Judge
06-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 268/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Principal District & Sessions Court at Navsari granted bail to Dharmeshbhai Manojbhai Halpati under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in a criminal case involving seized liquor and a vehicle. The court found no substantive evidence against the applicant and determined that his continued custody was unnecessary, imposing conditions including regular police station reporting, fixed residence disclosure, and non-absconding undertakings to ensure his appearance during trial proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.