SINDHU RAMCHANDRABHAI BODANA vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT — 668/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 12th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJRJ010017882026
Filing Number
668/2026
Filing Date
06-Mar-2026
Registration No
668/2026
Registration Date
06-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT RAJKOT
Judge
2-9th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11201018260009
Police Station
CID CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION - GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SINDHU RAMCHANDRABHAI BODANA
Adv. A N JANANI
Respondent(s)
-
1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Court Decision Summary The 9th Additional Sessions Judge at Rajkot granted regular bail to applicant Sindhu S/o. Ramchandra Bodana in a crypto fraud case involving ₹3.16 crore. The court found that while the applicant was implicated based on a witness statement, there was insufficient prima facie evidence of his direct involvement—he allegedly received only ₹4,400 with no proven economic benefits. The judge noted the investigation was likely complete since arrest (12-02-2026), making continued detention pretrial punishment, especially given the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
9th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 668/2026
Court Decision Summary The 9th Additional Sessions Judge at Rajkot granted regular bail to applicant Sindhu S/o. Ramchandra Bodana in a crypto fraud case involving ₹3.16 crore. The court found that while the applicant was implicated based on a witness statement, there was insufficient prima facie evidence of his direct involvement—he allegedly received only ₹4,400 with no proven economic benefits. The judge noted the investigation was likely complete since arrest (12-02-2026), making continued detention pretrial punishment, especially given the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts