PRATIK SATISH MATAPRASAD SHUKLA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - S K GOHIL — 1575/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 10th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJSR010028432026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1576/2026
Filing Date
02-03-2026
Registration No
1575/2026
Registration Date
02-03-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT
Judge
7-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
84
Police Station
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRATIK SATISH MATAPRASAD SHUKLA
Adv. B J HIRAPARA
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - S K GOHIL
Hearing History
Judge: 7-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 05-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court rejected the bail application (CRMA S/1575/2026) filed by the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the accused faced serious cybercrime charges involving digital arrest and financial fraud of substantial amounts, with investigation still ongoing and credible evidence suggesting risk of tampering with evidence and witness intimidation. The court also noted the accused's misrepresentation of address and existence of other co-accused absconding, warranting continued custody at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court rejected the bail application (CRMA S/1575/2026) filed by the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court found that the accused faced serious cybercrime charges involving digital arrest and financial fraud of substantial amounts, with investigation still ongoing and credible evidence suggesting risk of tampering with evidence and witness intimidation. The court also noted the accused's misrepresentation of address and existence of other co-accused absconding, warranting continued custody at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts