DIPAK SUBHASHCHANDRA TALESARA ALIAS JAIN vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - T A PANCHOLI — 1395/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJSR010025472026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1396/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
1395/2026
Registration Date
24-02-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT
Judge
7-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
843
Police Station
SAROLI POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DIPAK SUBHASHCHANDRA TALESARA ALIAS JAIN
Adv. G A PODDAR
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - T A PANCHOLI
Hearing History
Judge: 7-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 26-02-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Surat Fourth Additional Sessions Court granted regular bail to accused Dipak Subhashchandra Talsera in a cheating case (BNS sections 316(5) and 54) with bail amount of ₹25,000 and surety, imposing strict conditions including non-interference with witnesses, cooperation in investigation, and restriction from leaving jurisdiction without court permission. The court found the complainant had received substantial payment for goods sold, reducing the severity of allegations, and considered the accused's age, family circumstances, and completed investigation as grounds for bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Surat Fourth Additional Sessions Court granted regular bail to accused Dipak Subhashchandra Talsera in a cheating case (BNS sections 316(5) and 54) with bail amount of ₹25,000 and surety, imposing strict conditions including non-interference with witnesses, cooperation in investigation, and restriction from leaving jurisdiction without court permission. The court found the complainant had received substantial payment for goods sold, reducing the severity of allegations, and considered the accused's age, family circumstances, and completed investigation as grounds for bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts