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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 483,
THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 Section 316(5),54,

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

10-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

ORDER

26-02-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case