SUSHILKUMAR MAHAVIRPRASAD JOSHI vs Government of Gujarat — 1474/2026

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

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJSR010026732026

Filing Number

1476/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

1474/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT

Judge

8-2nd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 21-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Indian Penal Code Section 406,409,420,120B,114

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SUSHILKUMAR MAHAVIRPRASAD JOSHI

    Adv. N A SOLANKI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat rejected the bail application of Sushil Mahavirprasad Joshi, accused in a fraud case involving obtaining textile goods worth several crores without payment under sections 406, 409, 420, 120B, and 114 IPC. The court found the allegations grave and serious, noting prima facie evidence of systematic pre-planned fraudulent activity, ongoing investigation with pending arrests, and risk of witness tampering or evidence destruction, making the applicant unsuitable for bail despite his claims of being merely an employee. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl District Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Order

    2nd Addl District Judge

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    2nd Addl District Judge

  7. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1474/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat rejected the bail application of Sushil Mahavirprasad Joshi, accused in a fraud case involving obtaining textile goods worth several crores without payment under sections 406, 409, 420, 120B, and 114 IPC. The court found the allegations grave and serious, noting prima facie evidence of systematic pre-planned fraudulent activity, ongoing investigation with pending arrests, and risk of witness tampering or evidence destruction, making the applicant unsuitable for bail despite his claims of being merely an employee. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case