SANDIP ALIAS MUKESH MAHANTRAY YADAV vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP, J S PAREKH — 168/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJSR190002532026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
168/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
168/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, BARDOLI
Judge
1-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANDIP ALIAS MUKESH MAHANTRAY YADAV
Adv. V N NAYKA
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor), J S PAREKH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 03-03-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court in Bardoli, Surat rejected the bail application of accused Sandeep (alias Mukesh) Mahantray Yadav, who was charged under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1) and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6 for seducing, abducting, and committing repeated sexual offences against a minor girl (15 years, 2 months, 23 days old), resulting in her pregnancy. The court found a prima facie case against the accused and considered the serious nature of offences, risk of witness intimidation, and the victim's vulnerable condition as grounds for denying bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Court in Bardoli, Surat rejected the bail application of accused Sandeep (alias Mukesh) Mahantray Yadav, who was charged under IPC sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1) and POCSO Act sections 4 and 6 for seducing, abducting, and committing repeated sexual offences against a minor girl (15 years, 2 months, 23 days old), resulting in her pregnancy. The court found a prima facie case against the accused and considered the serious nature of offences, risk of witness intimidation, and the victim's vulnerable condition as grounds for denying bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts