PRATAPSINH KHUMSINH KALESH vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — CR.MA/2452/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: --38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH on 30th April 2026.
CNR: GJHC240072412026
Filing Number
CR.MA/4319/2026
Filing Date
28-01-2026
Registration No
CR.MA/2452/2026
Registration Date
30-01-2026
Judge
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Coram
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Bench Type
SINGLE
Category
900 - SJ - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 ( 900 )
Sub-Category
3 - SJ - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 - BAIL - ANTICIPATORY BAIL ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
JUDICIAL
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
--38-RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @ FH
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRATAPSINH KHUMSINH KALESH
Adv. MR. MAULIK M SONI(
Respondent(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(
Hearing History
Judge: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
3600-FRESH MATTERS
116-ADJOURNED MATTERS
116-ADJOURNED MATTERS
116-ADJOURNED MATTERS
529-FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 03-02-2026 | 3600-FRESH MATTERS |
| 30-04-2026 | 116-ADJOURNED MATTERS |
| 28-04-2026 | 116-ADJOURNED MATTERS |
| 10-04-2026 | 116-ADJOURNED MATTERS |
| 30-03-2026 | 529-FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Summary: The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to Pratapsinh Khumsinh Kalesh in a Prohibition Act case, finding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary given weak evidence—only a co-accused's statement with no call records, recovery, or direct evidence against him. The court released him on a Rs. 10,000 personal bond with one surety of equal amount, subject to strict conditions including cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and restrictions on leaving India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Gujarat High Court granted anticipatory bail to Pratapsinh Khumsinh Kalesh in a Prohibition Act case, finding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary given weak evidence—only a co-accused's statement with no call records, recovery, or direct evidence against him. The court released him on a Rs. 10,000 personal bond with one surety of equal amount, subject to strict conditions including cooperation with investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and restrictions on leaving India. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts