ALPESH NATHABHAI GEDIYA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - V L FALDU — 1534/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 20th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJSR010027722026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1535/2026
Filing Date
28-02-2026
Registration No
1534/2026
Registration Date
28-02-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT
Judge
6-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
451
Police Station
AMROLI POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
ALPESH NATHABHAI GEDIYA
Adv. Y B VALA
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - V L FALDU
Hearing History
Judge: 6-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 09-03-2026 | HEARING | |
| 03-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Judgment Summary The 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat rejected the anticipatory bail application of Alpesh Nathabhai Gediya, who was accused of sexual assault and coercion under BNS sections 64(2)(F)(M), 115(2), and 351(2). The court found a prima facie case against the applicant based on allegations that he forcibly engaged in sexual relations with the victim by threatening to share intimate photos, and subsequently threatened her. The court held that the investigation was at a crucial initial stage and custodial interrogation could not be ruled out, therefore no exceptional circumstances justified granting anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Judgment Summary The 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat rejected the anticipatory bail application of Alpesh Nathabhai Gediya, who was accused of sexual assault and coercion under BNS sections 64(2)(F)(M), 115(2), and 351(2). The court found a prima facie case against the applicant based on allegations that he forcibly engaged in sexual relations with the victim by threatening to share intimate photos, and subsequently threatened her. The court held that the investigation was at a crucial initial stage and custodial interrogation could not be ruled out, therefore no exceptional circumstances justified granting anticipatory 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