SADDAMHUSEN HUSENBHAI MIR as FATUVALA vs MOHAMMADRAMIJ ABDULRAZZAK MANSURI Advocate - V R MANSURI — 31/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415. Status: Warrant Of Arrest. Next hearing: 13th April 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJSK010001252026
Filing Number
31/2026
Filing Date
17-Jan-2026
Registration No
31/2026
Registration Date
17-Jan-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT HIMATNAGAR
Judge
1-Principal District & Sessions Judge
Last updated 12-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SADDAMHUSEN HUSENBHAI MIR as FATUVALA
Adv. A L PARMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.MOHAMMADRAMIJ ABDULRAZZAK MANSURI Advocate - V R MANSURI
-
2.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. H V TRIVEDI
Case History
-
13-Apr-2026
Next hearingPending
-
27-Mar-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
Warrant Of Arrest
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
20-Feb-2026
For R&P
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
06-Feb-2026
For R&P
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
20-Jan-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary: The appellate court allowed the suspension of sentence for convicted appellant Saddamhusen Husenbhai Mir, pending appeal conclusion. The convict was granted bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with surety of like amount, on condition that he deposit Rs. 14,000 (20% of the original fine) within 60 days, regularly attend court proceedings, and not obstruct the appeal proceedings. The court found that immediate incarceration would be unjust given the uncertain outcome of the appeal and the convict's willingness to comply with conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
20-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 31/2026
Summary: The appellate court allowed the suspension of sentence for convicted appellant Saddamhusen Husenbhai Mir, pending appeal conclusion. The convict was granted bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with surety of like amount, on condition that he deposit Rs. 14,000 (20% of the original fine) within 60 days, regularly attend court proceedings, and not obstruct the appeal proceedings. The court found that immediate incarceration would be unjust given the uncertain outcome of the appeal and the convict's willingness to comply with conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts