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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

60/2026

Filing Date

27-02-2026

Registration No

60/2026

Registration Date

27-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, DEODAR

Judge

4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

10th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11996003260114

Police Station

DEODAR POLICE STATION - BANASKANTHA DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 497

Petitioner(s)

ALPESHKUMAR BHUPENDRABHAI SONI

Adv. R C MAKWANA

Respondent(s)

Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Hearing History

Judge: 4-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

10-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

ORDER/JUDGEMENT

05-03-2026

PROCESS TO OPPONENT

Final Orders / Judgements

10-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT
10-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DEODAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case