ALPESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI SONI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 60/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 10th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJBK060003712026
Filing Number
60/2026
Filing Date
27-Feb-2026
Registration No
60/2026
Registration Date
27-Feb-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, DEODAR
Judge
4-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
10-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11996003260114
Police Station
DEODAR POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ALPESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI SONI
Adv. R C MAKWANA
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
-
10-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court in Diyodar, Banaskantha district granted the petition filed by Alpeshkumar Rupendra Soni for release of his seized Samsung A33 5G mobile phone (with Vodafon SIM 8140000395 and specified IMEI numbers), holding that ownership was established through documentary evidence and police seizure without proper justification. The court ordered release of the mobile phone upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with the condition that the accused shall not use it for any unlawful purpose and shall produce it before the court as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
09-Mar-2026
Order/Judgement
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 60/2026
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court in Diyodar, Banaskantha district granted the petition filed by Alpeshkumar Rupendra Soni for release of his seized Samsung A33 5G mobile phone (with Vodafon SIM 8140000395 and specified IMEI numbers), holding that ownership was established through documentary evidence and police seizure without proper justification. The court ordered release of the mobile phone upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with the condition that the accused shall not use it for any unlawful purpose and shall produce it before the court as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts