STATE OF GUJARAT vs ANAS ISHAK BOKDA Advocate - S S CHARKHA — 182/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 376(2)(N),506(2). Status: FINAL ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
SC - SESSIONS CASE
CNR: GJPM010028742023
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
182/2023
Filing Date
16-09-2023
Registration No
182/2023
Registration Date
16-09-2023
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT GODHRA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
FIR Details
FIR Number
084
Police Station
GODHRA CITY - B DIVISION POLICE STATION - PANCHMAHAL DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. PP
Respondent(s)
ANAS ISHAK BOKDA Advocate - S S CHARKHA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-05-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 30-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 08-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 13-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 11-02-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 182/2023 The Sessions Court at Godhra allowed accused Anas Bokda's application to re-open his right of cross-examination of the victim. The court found that although the defence counsel had previously failed to appear despite sufficient opportunities, resulting in closure of cross-examination rights, the accused should not be deprived of his fundamental right to defence as cross-examination was essential to establish his defence and would affect the trial's outcome. No costs were ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sessions Case No. 182/2023 The Sessions Court at Godhra allowed accused Anas Bokda's application to re-open his right of cross-examination of the victim. The court found that although the defence counsel had previously failed to appear despite sufficient opportunities, resulting in closure of cross-examination rights, the accused should not be deprived of his fundamental right to defence as cross-examination was essential to establish his defence and would affect the trial's outcome. No costs were ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts