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

Case disposed

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

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 229(2),236,337,340(2),54

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

20-03-2026

Disposed

18-03-2026

ORDER

17-03-2026

HEARING

13-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

20-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GODHRA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case