KAMLESHBHAI JENTIBHAI MAKVANA vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — SCR.A/7688/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE on 05th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GJHC240403862026

e-Filing Number

01-06-2026

Filing Number

SCR.A/23492/2026

Filing Date

03-Jun-2026

Registration No

SCR.A/7688/2026

Registration Date

03-Jun-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora

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

05-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

--28-REJECTED @ ADM.STAGE

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMLESHBHAI JENTIBHAI MAKVANA

    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. 05-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice R.m.chhaya,honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. VoraView PDF

    The Gujarat High Court dismissed Kamleshbhai Jentibhai Makvana's parole application. The court upheld the competent authority's rejection, finding no infirmity in the decision based on negative police opinion, availability of family financial support, and apprehension of breach of peace/parole jumping. The court affirmed that parole is a discretionary privilege, not a right. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Jun-2026

    3600-Fresh Matters

    Honourable Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora

  4. 03-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. SCR.A/7688/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Gujarat High Court dismissed Kamleshbhai Jentibhai Makvana's parole application. The court upheld the competent authority's rejection, finding no infirmity in the decision based on negative police opinion, availability of family financial support, and apprehension of breach of peace/parole jumping. The court affirmed that parole is a discretionary privilege, not a right. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case