FIROJ KASHIRAM TUMDA vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — SCR.A/4880/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE on 10th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GJHC240266992026

e-Filing Number

05-04-2026

Filing Number

SCR.A/15399/2026

Filing Date

07-Apr-2026

Registration No

SCR.A/4880/2026

Registration Date

07-Apr-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr.justice Sanjeev J.thaker

Coram

Honourable Mr.justice Sanjeev J.thaker

Bench Type

SINGLE

Category

625-SJ - SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION - UNDER ARTICLE 226 ( 625 )

Sub-Category

2321-SJ - SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION - UNDER ARTICLE 226 - SEEKING PAROLE - THROUGH JAIL ( 2321 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL

Decision Date

10-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(pocso) Act, 2012 Section 376(2)(N)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.FIROJ KASHIRAM TUMDA

    Adv. THROUGH JAIL(

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(

  2. 2.JAIL SUPERINTENDENT

  3. 3.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Apr-2026

    Honourable Ms. Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen,honourable Mr.justice Sanjeev J.thakerView PDF

    The Gujarat High Court rejected Firoj Kashiram Tumda's petition seeking 30-day parole leave for financial assistance to his family and advocate fees. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker found that the averments and reasons stated in the application did not constitute sufficient grounds to grant parole, and accordingly dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Apr-2026

    3600-Fresh Matters

    Honourable Mr.justice P. M. Raval

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. SCR.A/4880/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court rejected Firoj Kashiram Tumda's petition seeking 30-day parole leave for financial assistance to his family and advocate fees. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker found that the averments and reasons stated in the application did not constitute sufficient grounds to grant parole, and accordingly dismissed the petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case