HITESHKUMAR @ BHOLO RAMESHBHAI MAKAVANA vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - C G PATEL — 116/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJVD200004232026

Filing Number

116/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

116/2026

Registration Date

23-Mar-2026

Court

ADDL. COURT-SAVLI

Judge

2-9th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 04-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1119707260460

Police Station

WAGHODIA POLICE STATION - VADODARA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HITESHKUMAR @ BHOLO RAMESHBHAI MAKAVANA

    Adv. M A PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - C G PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case Summary: Cr.M.A. 116/2026 The court granted regular bail to 24-year-old Hiteshkumar Makwana, arrested for alcohol prohibition offences under Sections 65(a) and 65(e) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The judge found that evidence recovery was complete, no further investigation was pending, the accused was a local resident with negligible flight risk, and continued detention would constitute pre-trial conviction. Bail was set at Rs. 15,000 with stringent conditions including monthly police reporting and restrictions on leaving India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    9th Addl District Judge

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 116/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Cr.M.A. 116/2026 The court granted regular bail to 24-year-old Hiteshkumar Makwana, arrested for alcohol prohibition offences under Sections 65(a) and 65(e) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The judge found that evidence recovery was complete, no further investigation was pending, the accused was a local resident with negligible flight risk, and continued detention would constitute pre-trial conviction. Bail was set at Rs. 15,000 with stringent conditions including monthly police reporting and restrictions on leaving India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case