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

Case disposed

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

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 452,

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

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

29-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEODAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case