KARANKUMAR HARESHKUMAR GAURANI vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - PP — 283/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 20th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC.APPLN-SESSIONS
CNR: GJPM010008942026
Filing Number
283/2026
Filing Date
09-03-2026
Registration No
283/2026
Registration Date
09-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GODHRA
Judge
19-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
7
Police Station
SHAHERA POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KARANKUMAR HARESHKUMAR GAURANI
Adv. B H DAVE
KHUSHIBEN W/O KARANKUMAR HARESHKUMAR GAURANI AND D/O KAMLESHBHAI KHANDELVAL
Respondent(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - PP (Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 19-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 17-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals granted anticipatory bail to the applicants (a married couple aged 24 and 23) in a case involving allegations of forgery and false marriage registration documents. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the prosecution's case relied primarily on documentary evidence already possessed by investigators, and the applicants' signatures were admitted as genuine. The court emphasized that the offences were largely bailable in nature, the applicants had no criminal antecedents, and there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering. The applicants were released on personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with standard bail conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals granted anticipatory bail to the applicants (a married couple aged 24 and 23) in a case involving allegations of forgery and false marriage registration documents. The court found that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the prosecution's case relied primarily on documentary evidence already possessed by investigators, and the applicants' signatures were admitted as genuine. The court emphasized that the offences were largely bailable in nature, the applicants had no criminal antecedents, and there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering. The applicants were released on personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with standard bail conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts