DHARAMDAS GOVINDBHAI HARIJAN (BHANGI) vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - AGP — 90/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - S

CNR: GJPM170002932026

Filing Number

90/2026

Filing Date

23-Feb-2026

Registration No

90/2026

Registration Date

23-Feb-2026

Court

ADDL. DIST. COURT HALOL

Judge

2-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 10-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHARAMDAS GOVINDBHAI HARIJAN (BHANGI)

    Adv. M I MAKRANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - AGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The 3rd Additional Sessions Court (Halol) rejected the bail petition filed by the accused under the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011 and IPC provisions. The court found that the accused killed a cow, sold its meat, and possessed the kill weapons and meat in their custody—serious charges that warrant continued detention. The court denied bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offense, lack of prima facie evidence of innocence, and the risk of tampering with evidence or absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    Order

    3rd Addl District Judge

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Order

    3rd Addl District Judge

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 90/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The 3rd Additional Sessions Court (Halol) rejected the bail petition filed by the accused under the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 2011 and IPC provisions. The court found that the accused killed a cow, sold its meat, and possessed the kill weapons and meat in their custody—serious charges that warrant continued detention. The court denied bail, citing the nature and gravity of the offense, lack of prima facie evidence of innocence, and the risk of tampering with evidence or absconding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case