SIRAJ USMAN MASTAR vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - V L FALDU — 1811/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJSR010032402026

Filing Number

1812/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

1811/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT

Judge

6-6th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

569

Police Station

KAMREJ POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
Gujarat (Bombay) Animal Preservation Act, 1954 Section 5,6,8
The Gujarat Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 2017 Section 6(A)(B),8(2)(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SIRAJ USMAN MASTAR

    Adv. R M ANSARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - V L FALDU

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The court rejected Siraj Usman Mastar's bail application in an animal preservation offense case. The judge found prima facie evidence that the accused was transporting prohibited animal products, had prior criminal antecedents for similar offenses, and posed flight risks; the investigation remained at a crucial stage requiring the accused's custody to prevent obstruction of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    6th Addl District Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1811/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected Siraj Usman Mastar's bail application in an animal preservation offense case. The judge found prima facie evidence that the accused was transporting prohibited animal products, had prior criminal antecedents for similar offenses, and posed flight risks; the investigation remained at a crucial stage requiring the accused's custody to prevent obstruction of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case