Keval Jentibhai Sitapara vs The State of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 92/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRI. MISC. APPLI. - SESSIONS

CNR: GJRJ210001722026

Filing Number

92/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

92/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

FTC COURT, JETPUR

Judge

1-7th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 16-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11213022250775

Police Station

JETPUR CITY POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Keval Jentibhai Sitapara

    Adv. D M VAGHELA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Rajkot rejected the regular bail application of Keval Jentibhai Sitapara under BNS Section 483. The applicant was accused of cyber fraud offenses under BNS Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 54, and 317(2). The court found that the accused had allegedly used bank accounts of others to receive and transfer fraudulently obtained funds amounting to approximately ₹94,89,077 to Dubai, and had a pattern of committing similar crimes across multiple police stations, making him unsuitable for bail at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    7th Addl District Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 92/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Court, Rajkot rejected the regular bail application of Keval Jentibhai Sitapara under BNS Section 483. The applicant was accused of cyber fraud offenses under BNS Sections 316(5), 318(4), 61(2), 54, and 317(2). The court found that the accused had allegedly used bank accounts of others to receive and transfer fraudulently obtained funds amounting to approximately ₹94,89,077 to Dubai, and had a pattern of committing similar crimes across multiple police stations, making him unsuitable for bail at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case