AAL BHARTIBEN AMRATBHAI vs Government of Gujarat (deodar police station) Advocate - APP — 27/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 452,. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 29th April 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJBK060002182026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
27/2026
Filing Date
22-01-2026
Registration No
27/2026
Registration Date
22-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEODAR
Judge
4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
159
Police Station
DEODAR POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AAL BHARTIBEN AMRATBHAI
Adv. R C MAKWANA
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat (deodar police station) Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
ORDER/JUDGEMENT
ORDER/JUDGEMENT
ORDER/JUDGEMENT
ORDER/JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-04-2026 | ORDER/JUDGEMENT | |
| 21-04-2026 | ORDER/JUDGEMENT | |
| 16-04-2026 | ORDER/JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-04-2026 | ORDER/JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Didwana Chief Judicial Magistrate's court rejected the plaintiff's petition seeking to recover a seized pickup truck vehicle involved in a criminal proceeding. The court found that the petitioner was the legitimate owner and pledgee of the vehicle, but held that since the vehicle was seized as evidence in a criminal case and subsequently sold as per police procedure, the petitioner had no legal right to recover it. The court ruled that the vehicle's status was governed by criminal procedure law, not civil remedies, and therefore dismissed the petition while noting the petitioner could pursue other appropriate legal avenues if warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Didwana Chief Judicial Magistrate's court rejected the plaintiff's petition seeking to recover a seized pickup truck vehicle involved in a criminal proceeding. The court found that the petitioner was the legitimate owner and pledgee of the vehicle, but held that since the vehicle was seized as evidence in a criminal case and subsequently sold as per police procedure, the petitioner had no legal right to recover it. The court ruled that the vehicle's status was governed by criminal procedure law, not civil remedies, and therefore dismissed the petition while noting the petitioner could pursue other appropriate legal avenues if warranted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts