SHEKH RUBINKHAN YUSUFMIYA vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP — 75/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 07th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJVD040008972026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
75/2026
Filing Date
03-03-2026
Registration No
75/2026
Registration Date
03-03-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, PADRA
Judge
4-3rd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHEKH RUBINKHAN YUSUFMIYA
Adv. V H PATEL
Respondent(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 4-3rd ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
ORDER/JUDGEMENT
HEARING P.P.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | ORDER/JUDGEMENT | |
| 05-03-2026 | HEARING P.P. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary In this CRMA case from the Gujarat High Court (dated March 7, 2026), the court granted bail to accused Shekh Rubinkhan Yusufmiya in a drug-related case under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and BNS sections 336(2)(4), 338, 339, and 340(2). The court found that while the arrest procedure was legally valid, the evidence against the accused was weak—relying solely on an uncorroborated police statement from a co-accused. The court noted no direct evidence linked the appellant to the contraband, no incriminating documents were recovered from him, and the trial would take considerable time, warranting bail with conditions including court appearance, passport surrender, and restrictions on witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary In this CRMA case from the Gujarat High Court (dated March 7, 2026), the court granted bail to accused Shekh Rubinkhan Yusufmiya in a drug-related case under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 and BNS sections 336(2)(4), 338, 339, and 340(2). The court found that while the arrest procedure was legally valid, the evidence against the accused was weak—relying solely on an uncorroborated police statement from a co-accused. The court noted no direct evidence linked the appellant to the contraband, no incriminating documents were recovered from him, and the trial would take considerable time, warranting bail with conditions including court appearance, passport surrender, and restrictions on witness intimidation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts