NITINBHAI KALUBHAI URFE KALABHAI CHAVDA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 232/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJSN010004742026

Filing Number

232/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

232/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURENDRANAGAR

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

06-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 15-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65AE,116B,98(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NITINBHAI KALUBHAI URFE KALABHAI CHAVDA

    Adv. D N SADADIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Judegement

    Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court at Surendranagar granted bail to the petitioner under Section 483 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2023. The court found that while the petitioner was accused of possessing foreign liquor under the Prohibition Act, the evidence against him was insufficient and circumstantial. The court noted that the petitioner's name did not clearly emerge during investigation, and the recovery of contraband could not be definitively linked to him, warranting his release on regular bail pending trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  4. 05-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 232/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Sessions Court at Surendranagar granted bail to the petitioner under Section 483 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2023. The court found that while the petitioner was accused of possessing foreign liquor under the Prohibition Act, the evidence against him was insufficient and circumstantial. The court noted that the petitioner's name did not clearly emerge during investigation, and the recovery of contraband could not be definitively linked to him, warranting his release on regular bail pending trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case