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.

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJSR010026732026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1476/2026

Filing Date

26-02-2026

Registration No

1474/2026

Registration Date

26-02-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT

Judge

8-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

09th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 483,
INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 406,409,420,120B,114,

Petitioner(s)

SUSHILKUMAR MAHAVIRPRASAD JOSHI

Adv. N A SOLANKI

Respondent(s)

Government of Gujarat

Hearing History

Judge: 8-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

09-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

ORDER

05-03-2026

HEARING

02-03-2026

HEARING

28-02-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

09-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case