RAJENDRA PARMA UADAV vs Government of Gujarat — 1574/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJSR010028412026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1575/2026
Filing Date
02-03-2026
Registration No
1574/2026
Registration Date
02-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT
Judge
8-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJENDRA PARMA UADAV
Adv. S V VIRMANI
RANTIDEO NANDLAL PANDEY
DEVENDRAKUMAR LALLU YADAV
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat
Hearing History
Judge: 8-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
PROCESS TO RESPONDENTS
PROCESS TO RESPONDENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 06-03-2026 | PROCESS TO RESPONDENTS | |
| 05-03-2026 | PROCESS TO RESPONDENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat, rejected the bail application of three workers (Rajendra Parma Uadav, Rantideo Nandlal Pandey, and Devendrakumar Lallu Yadav) accused in a violent incident at AM/NS India's Hazira premises. The court found the allegations serious—involving unlawful assembly, rioting, stone-pelting, property damage, and attacks on police causing injuries—and concluded that releasing them on bail could lead to evidence tampering and witness interference, given the ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Surat, rejected the bail application of three workers (Rajendra Parma Uadav, Rantideo Nandlal Pandey, and Devendrakumar Lallu Yadav) accused in a violent incident at AM/NS India's Hazira premises. The court found the allegations serious—involving unlawful assembly, rioting, stone-pelting, property damage, and attacks on police causing injuries—and concluded that releasing them on bail could lead to evidence tampering and witness interference, given the ongoing investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts