ASHISH alias AMIT VAJESINH PARMAR vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP — 661/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 13th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJRJ010017712026
Filing Number
661/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
661/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT RAJKOT
Judge
2-9th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11208044260158
Police Station
PRADUMAN NAGAR POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ASHISH alias AMIT VAJESINH PARMAR
Adv. R B PURNVAIRAGI
Respondent(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP
RAJNISHBHAI LAXMANBHAI SONDARVA
Hearing History
Judge: 2-9th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The 9th Additional Sessions Judge at Rajkot rejected the regular bail application of 19-year-old Ashish Parmar, who was accused of beating a complainant with knife blows causing eight serious injuries on vital body parts. The court found that the applicant had a substantial role in the offense—allegedly motivated by grudge after being removed from his security guard position—and that the injuries were severe enough to conclude the complainant remained in danger despite hospital discharge. The court determined there was no basis to exercise discretion in favor of bail given the gravity of injuries, investigation stage, and risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The 9th Additional Sessions Judge at Rajkot rejected the regular bail application of 19-year-old Ashish Parmar, who was accused of beating a complainant with knife blows causing eight serious injuries on vital body parts. The court found that the applicant had a substantial role in the offense—allegedly motivated by grudge after being removed from his security guard position—and that the injuries were severe enough to conclude the complainant remained in danger despite hospital discharge. The court determined there was no basis to exercise discretion in favor of bail given the gravity of injuries, investigation stage, and risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts