MAYANK SANJAY MISHRA vs Government of Gujarat — 1981/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 30th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJSR010035192026
Filing Number
1982/2026
Filing Date
17-Mar-2026
Registration No
1981/2026
Registration Date
17-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT
Judge
8-2nd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
28
Police Station
RANDER POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MAYANK SANJAY MISHRA
Adv. Z N VANA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The court rejected 23-year-old Mayank Sanjay Mishra's bail application in a fraud case involving cheating charges under BNS 2023. The accused allegedly defrauded approximately 50 victims of over Rs. 62 lakhs by falsely posing as someone with influence in government housing allotments, collecting money, and issuing forged demand drafts and allotment letters. The court found the allegations constitute a serious, well-planned offense with multiple victims and significant financial loss, rejecting the defense claim that it was merely a civil dispute and determining that custody was necessary given investigation status and risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Addl District Judge
-
25-Mar-2026
Order
2nd Addl District Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Process To Respondents
2nd Addl District Judge
-
20-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 1981/2026
Summary The court rejected 23-year-old Mayank Sanjay Mishra's bail application in a fraud case involving cheating charges under BNS 2023. The accused allegedly defrauded approximately 50 victims of over Rs. 62 lakhs by falsely posing as someone with influence in government housing allotments, collecting money, and issuing forged demand drafts and allotment letters. The court found the allegations constitute a serious, well-planned offense with multiple victims and significant financial loss, rejecting the defense claim that it was merely a civil dispute and determining that custody was necessary given investigation status and risk of witness tampering. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts