VISHAL DINESHBHAI GOHIL vs STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH AGP BHAVNAGAR — 412/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 09th April 2026.
CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS
CNR: GJBN010007982026
Filing Number
412/2026
Filing Date
28-02-2026
Registration No
412/2026
Registration Date
28-02-2026
Court
DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR
Judge
2-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11198048250379
Police Station
SONGADH POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VISHAL DINESHBHAI GOHIL
Adv. P P JADEJA
Respondent(s)
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH AGP BHAVNAGAR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | ORDER |
| 06-04-2026 | ORDER |
| 03-04-2026 | HEARING |
| 27-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court rejected the petitioner Vishal Dineshbhai Gohil's plea seeking custody of a seized motorcycle (Motorola AXE 50) from Songarh Police Station. The court found that the motorcycle was crucial evidence in serious criminal charges and that returning it to the petitioner would risk tampering with evidence, noting the phone's data recovery capability was essential for the investigation. The court dismissed the petition, holding that retaining the motorcycle as evidence was legally justified and necessary for proper criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court rejected the petitioner Vishal Dineshbhai Gohil's plea seeking custody of a seized motorcycle (Motorola AXE 50) from Songarh Police Station. The court found that the motorcycle was crucial evidence in serious criminal charges and that returning it to the petitioner would risk tampering with evidence, noting the phone's data recovery capability was essential for the investigation. The court dismissed the petition, holding that retaining the motorcycle as evidence was legally justified and necessary for proper criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts