PRAHLADBHAI SAKALCHAND PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR( — CR.MA/12669/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.
CNR: GJHC240404982026
Next Hearing
23rd June 2026
Filing Number
CR.MA/23569/2026
Filing Date
03-06-2026
Registration No
CR.MA/12669/2026
Registration Date
04-06-2026
Judge
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Coram
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
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
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRAHLADBHAI SAKALCHAND PATEL
Adv. MR PADMRAJ K JADEJA(
Respondent(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(
Hearing History
Judge: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
3600-FRESH MATTERS
125-NOTICE RETURNABLE & ADJOURNED MATTERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | 3600-FRESH MATTERS |
| 23-06-2026 | 125-NOTICE RETURNABLE & ADJOURNED MATTERS |
Orders
Case Summary: CR.MA/12669/2026 Outcome: Anticipatory bail granted with interim protection. The court directed that the investigating officer shall not arrest the applicant until the next hearing (scheduled for 23.06.2026), on the condition that the applicant appear before the investigating officer on 16.06.2026 (11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) for statement recording. The court found prima facie that protection was required, given the applicant's limited involvement as merely a witness to an affidavit filed by legal heirs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: CR.MA/12669/2026 Outcome: Anticipatory bail granted with interim protection. The court directed that the investigating officer shall not arrest the applicant until the next hearing (scheduled for 23.06.2026), on the condition that the applicant appear before the investigating officer on 16.06.2026 (11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) for statement recording. The court found prima facie that protection was required, given the applicant's limited involvement as merely a witness to an affidavit filed by legal heirs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts