NAVEENKUMAR SHANABHAI PAGI vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - PP — 278/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC.APPLN-SESSIONS
CNR: GJPM010008752026
Filing Number
278/2026
Filing Date
07-Mar-2026
Registration No
278/2026
Registration Date
07-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GODHRA
Judge
2-4th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 07-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
1100
Police Station
SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NAVEENKUMAR SHANABHAI PAGI
Adv. D A SHETH
Respondent(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - PP (Public Prosecutor)
-
2.COMPLAINANT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary: The court rejected the bail application of 18-year-old Navinkumar Shanabhai Pagi, accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old minor with threats and violence under BNS sections and POCSO Act. The court found that releasing him posed a risk of offense repetition and held that merely filing the charge-sheet constituted no material change in circumstances warranting bail approval after his earlier bail application (CrMA 999/2025) was rejected on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
4th Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
4th Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 278/2026
Summary: The court rejected the bail application of 18-year-old Navinkumar Shanabhai Pagi, accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old minor with threats and violence under BNS sections and POCSO Act. The court found that releasing him posed a risk of offense repetition and held that merely filing the charge-sheet constituted no material change in circumstances warranting bail approval after his earlier bail application (CrMA 999/2025) was rejected on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts