JADAV SMIT RAMESHBHAI vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP — 79/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497,503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJAH100005212026

Filing Number

79/2026

Filing Date

16-Feb-2026

Registration No

79/2026

Registration Date

16-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, VIRAMGAM

Judge

5-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

31102260028292

Police Station

CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497,503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JADAV SMIT RAMESHBHAI

    Adv. S J PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The court granted the petitioner's application under CrPC Sections 497 and 503, ordering the release of frozen bank funds (totaling ₹84,791) that were seized during a cyber fraud investigation. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the funds as the investigation concluded the complainant had filed a false case, and ordered the funds to be credited back to the petitioner's designated bank account after furnishing a bond and security deposit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Final Hearing

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 27-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 79/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court granted the petitioner's application under CrPC Sections 497 and 503, ordering the release of frozen bank funds (totaling ₹84,791) that were seized during a cyber fraud investigation. The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the funds as the investigation concluded the complainant had filed a false case, and ordered the funds to be credited back to the petitioner's designated bank account after furnishing a bond and security deposit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case