GORAKH BHIMRAV GADARI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 183/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 06th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJSR190002742026
Filing Number
183/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
183/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, BARDOLI
Judge
2-5th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
06-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 22-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GORAKH BHIMRAV GADARI
Adv. P I JODHPURIYA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Gorakh Bhimrao Gadri under CrPC Section 482, filed in a case involving charges under the Prohibition Act (sections 65(a)(i), 81, 83, 98(2), 116(b)) and IPC sections 112(2)(b), 111(3)(4). The court found a prima facie case against the applicant, noting he supplied a substantial quantity of foreign liquor (1,878 bottles worth ₹3,85,480) through his wine shop, demonstrating active involvement in the crime. The court also considered his criminal history, ongoing police investigation requiring custodial interrogation, and risk of re-offending, making him unsuitable for bail at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Mar-2026
Disposed
5th Addl District Judge
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 183/2026
Summary The court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Gorakh Bhimrao Gadri under CrPC Section 482, filed in a case involving charges under the Prohibition Act (sections 65(a)(i), 81, 83, 98(2), 116(b)) and IPC sections 112(2)(b), 111(3)(4). The court found a prima facie case against the applicant, noting he supplied a substantial quantity of foreign liquor (1,878 bottles worth ₹3,85,480) through his wine shop, demonstrating active involvement in the crime. The court also considered his criminal history, ongoing police investigation requiring custodial interrogation, and risk of re-offending, making him unsuitable for bail at this stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts