NIKHIL HASMUKHBHAI SAVALIYA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P DOBARIYA — 1827/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 20th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJSR010032572026
Filing Number
1828/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
1827/2026
Registration Date
11-03-2026
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
86
Police Station
CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
NIKHIL HASMUKHBHAI SAVALIYA
Adv. R K JIVANI
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P DOBARIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 6-6th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
PROCESS TO RESPONDENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 13-03-2026 | PROCESS TO RESPONDENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Nikhil Hasmukhbhai Savaliya v. State of Gujarat (1827/2026) The court rejected Savaliya's anticipatory bail application in a cyber fraud case involving a fake Meesho e-commerce application. The applicant and co-accused allegedly conspired to develop and operate a fraudulent app, collected advance payments from customers for undelivered orders, and defrauded multiple buyers. The court found a prima facie case existed, determined custodial interrogation remained necessary for fair investigation since the accused was the app handler, and noted the applicant had been absconding, rendering the parity principle inapplicable despite co-accused receiving bail post-chargesheet. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Nikhil Hasmukhbhai Savaliya v. State of Gujarat (1827/2026) The court rejected Savaliya's anticipatory bail application in a cyber fraud case involving a fake Meesho e-commerce application. The applicant and co-accused allegedly conspired to develop and operate a fraudulent app, collected advance payments from customers for undelivered orders, and defrauded multiple buyers. The court found a prima facie case existed, determined custodial interrogation remained necessary for fair investigation since the accused was the app handler, and noted the applicant had been absconding, rendering the parity principle inapplicable despite co-accused receiving bail post-chargesheet. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts