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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 497,503

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

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

18-03-2026
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, VIRAMGAM All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case