BHAMARDAS ALIAS BHAVARDAS RAJURAM SADHU vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - D K PUROHIT — 239/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 17th March 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBK010007692026
Filing Number
239/2026
Filing Date
02-Mar-2026
Registration No
239/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR
Judge
5-3rd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11195050211324
Police Station
THARAD POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BHAMARDAS ALIAS BHAVARDAS RAJURAM SADHU
Adv. A B RAJPUT
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - D K PUROHIT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Third Additional Sessions Court at Palanpur granted the applicant's petition under Section 497 of the CrPC to recover a Maruti Swift car (Registration No. GJ-12-DA-8444) seized as evidence in a drug smuggling case. The court found that the applicant, despite multiple previous applications before this and the High Court, had legitimate grounds for recovery as the vehicle's condition would deteriorate in police custody, and no legal impediment existed to return the seized property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
3rd Addl District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Order
3rd Addl District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
3rd Addl District Judge
-
09-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 239/2026
Court Decision Summary The Third Additional Sessions Court at Palanpur granted the applicant's petition under Section 497 of the CrPC to recover a Maruti Swift car (Registration No. GJ-12-DA-8444) seized as evidence in a drug smuggling case. The court found that the applicant, despite multiple previous applications before this and the High Court, had legitimate grounds for recovery as the vehicle's condition would deteriorate in police custody, and no legal impediment existed to return the seized property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts