SHENVA VISHALBHAI DINESHBHAI vs THE STATE Advocate - J C PATEL — 78/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 23rd March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJAH240002732026
Filing Number
78/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
78/2026
Registration Date
26-02-2026
Court
Addl. Court Dholka
Judge
1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11192020250461
Police Station
Dholka Town Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHENVA VISHALBHAI DINESHBHAI
Adv. T R JOSHI
Respondent(s)
THE STATE Advocate - J C PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
ORDER
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 18-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 17-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 16-03-2026 | ORDER |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the application and ordered the return of the seized mobile phone to the applicant. The judge reasoned that since the criminal trial in the POCSO case had concluded with conviction, the applicant (who was not the accused) was the legitimate owner, and prolonged police custody would damage the electronic device, there was no further need to retain the muddamal article. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the application and ordered the return of the seized mobile phone to the applicant. The judge reasoned that since the criminal trial in the POCSO case had concluded with conviction, the applicant (who was not the accused) was the legitimate owner, and prolonged police custody would damage the electronic device, there was no further need to retain the muddamal article. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts