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

WARRANT OF ARREST

Next Hearing

13th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

31/2026

Filing Date

17-01-2026

Registration No

31/2026

Registration Date

17-01-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT HIMATNAGAR

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 415,
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138,

Petitioner(s)

SADDAMHUSEN HUSENBHAI MIR as FATUVALA

Adv. A L PARMAR

Respondent(s)

MOHAMMADRAMIJ ABDULRAZZAK MANSURI Advocate - V R MANSURI

THE STATE OF GUJARAT

Adv. H V TRIVEDI

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

27-03-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

10-03-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

07-03-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

05-03-2026

WARRANT OF ARREST

20-02-2026

FOR R&P

Interim Orders

20-01-2026
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT HIMATNAGAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case