BHARATSINH JORUBHA GOHIL vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — CR.MA/10241/2026

Case under Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5. Status: 3600-Fresh Matters. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.

3600-Fresh Matters Next hearing 16-Jun-2026 this date has passed

CNR: GJHC240315112026

Filing Number

CR.MA/18160/2026

Filing Date

23-Apr-2026

Registration No

CR.MA/10241/2026

Registration Date

28-Apr-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak

Bench Type

SINGLE

Category

900 - SJ - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 ( 900 )

Sub-Category

5 - SJ - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY ( 5 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIAL

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHARATSINH JORUBHA GOHIL

    Adv. ANURAG R RATHOR(

Respondent(s)

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

  2. 2.NARENDRAKUMAR NARANBHAI VYAS

Case History

  1. 16-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Honourable The Chief Justice Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani,honourable Mr. Justice Hemant M. PrachchhakView PDF

    Case Summary: CR.MA/10241/2026 The Gujarat High Court allowed Bharatsinh Jorubha Gohil's application seeking condonation of a 61-day delay in filing an application for restoration. The court found sufficient cause for the delay, noting the applicant's wife was suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment, which prevented timely filing. The delay was condoned and the rule was made absolute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    3600-Fresh Matters

    Honourable Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak

  4. 23-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CR.MA/10241/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CR.MA/10241/2026 The Gujarat High Court allowed Bharatsinh Jorubha Gohil's application seeking condonation of a 61-day delay in filing an application for restoration. The court found sufficient cause for the delay, noting the applicant's wife was suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment, which prevented timely filing. The delay was condoned and the rule was made absolute. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case