MOHAMMAD UVAISE vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP — 366/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 02nd April 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJRJ010009112026
Filing Number
366/2026
Filing Date
07-02-2026
Registration No
366/2026
Registration Date
07-02-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT RAJKOT
Judge
7-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11208003251199
Police Station
GANDHIGRAM / UNIVERSITY ( GANDHIGRAM-2 ) - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MOHAMMAD UVAISE
Adv. S DWIVEDI
ABDUL LATHEEF N V
SHAHANA BANU N V
IMMUL HASNA
Respondent(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP
Hearing History
Judge: 7-5th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 27-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 02-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Rajkot Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of four directors of Aramfly Private Limited accused of cheating immigration consultancy clients of ₹2.68 crore by falsely promising work permits to Slovakia. The court found a strong prima facie case under BNS sections 318(4) and 3(5), noting the economic fraud against 55 victims, the accused's lack of cooperation with investigation, their status as non-residents in different states creating flight risk, and the company's closure immediately after the complaint—factors warranting custody rather than bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Rajkot Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of four directors of Aramfly Private Limited accused of cheating immigration consultancy clients of ₹2.68 crore by falsely promising work permits to Slovakia. The court found a strong prima facie case under BNS sections 318(4) and 3(5), noting the economic fraud against 55 victims, the accused's lack of cooperation with investigation, their status as non-residents in different states creating flight risk, and the company's closure immediately after the complaint—factors warranting custody rather than bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts