MAYUR DINESHBHAI BARASARA vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP — 469/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497,503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJAH100044462025
Filing Number
469/2025
Filing Date
04-12-2025
Registration No
469/2025
Registration Date
04-12-2025
Court
TALUKA COURT, VIRAMGAM
Judge
3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11994014250152
Police Station
VIRAMGAM- RAILWAY POLICE STATION - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAYUR DINESHBHAI BARASARA
Adv. K D CHAVDA
Respondent(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 3-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
ORDER/JUDGEMENT
REPLY OF I.O.
REPLY OF I.O.
REPLY OF I.O.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | ORDER/JUDGEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. |
| 27-02-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. |
| 25-02-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Viramgam granted the petitioner's application under Section 497 BNSS to recover a mobile phone seized by police. The court found the petitioner was the lawful owner (based on bill evidence), the phone is essential for daily use, and no other party claimed it or objected to its return. The court ordered temporary custody of the phone be handed to the petitioner upon furnishing a bond equivalent to 1.5 times the phone's value, with conditions that the phone not be transferred, must be produced on demand, and photographs be submitted to the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Viramgam granted the petitioner's application under Section 497 BNSS to recover a mobile phone seized by police. The court found the petitioner was the lawful owner (based on bill evidence), the phone is essential for daily use, and no other party claimed it or objected to its return. The court ordered temporary custody of the phone be handed to the petitioner upon furnishing a bond equivalent to 1.5 times the phone's value, with conditions that the phone not be transferred, must be produced on demand, and photographs be submitted to the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts