ANAKUBHAI BAHADURBHAI TAKMARIYA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 236/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJSN010005132026

Filing Number

236/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

236/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURENDRANAGAR

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 15-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65A,65E,116B,81,98(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANAKUBHAI BAHADURBHAI TAKMARIYA

    Adv. L M ZALA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The Surat Sessions Court granted bail to the appellant under Section 483 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2023, in a criminal case involving charges under IPC Sections 65(a)(i), 116(b), 81, and 98(2). The court found that the appellant's prolonged detention was unjustified, noting inconsistencies in the investigation and no credible evidence linking him to the alleged crimes, while other co-accused in similar matters had been granted bail earlier. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Order

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 236/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Surat Sessions Court granted bail to the appellant under Section 483 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2023, in a criminal case involving charges under IPC Sections 65(a)(i), 116(b), 81, and 98(2). The court found that the appellant's prolonged detention was unjustified, noting inconsistencies in the investigation and no credible evidence linking him to the alleged crimes, while other co-accused in similar matters had been granted bail earlier. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case