STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH K D AYAR ASST ADVISOR vs JAYANTILAL MAGANLAL SHAH(Abated) Advocate - ABATED — 119/2025

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION

CNR: GJBN010044792025

Filing Number

119/2025

Filing Date

14-Oct-2025

Registration No

119/2025

Registration Date

14-Oct-2025

Court

DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397
Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 Section 147(1)(S),148(1)(S)
Indian Penal Code Section 409,418,420,421,463,464,477

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH K D AYAR ASST ADVISOR

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAYANTILAL MAGANLAL SHAH(Abated) Advocate - ABATED

  2. 2.HITENBHAI INDULAL BHATT

    Adv. K C DESAI

  3. 3.PRITIBEN B BHATT LOAN OFFICER

    Adv. K C DESAI

  4. 4.KANAIYALAL VRAJLAL PANDYA CHAIRMAN(Abated)

    Adv. ABATED

  5. 5.INDUKUMAR UKABHAI PATEL MANAGING DIRECTOR

    Adv. ABATED

  6. 6.PARSHOTTAMDAS VRAJLAL SHAH JOINT DIRECTOR(Abated)

    Adv. ABATED

  7. 7.RAJESHKUMAR RAMNIKLAL PATEL DIRECTOR

    Adv. ABATED

  8. 8.HIRALAL JAMNADAS SHAH DIRECTOR

    Adv. ABATED

  9. 9.KIRITKUMAR HIMMATLAL PATEL DIRECTOR

    Adv. M L MAKWANA

  10. 10.MAHESHBHAI MANHARLAL PAREKH

    Adv. ABATED

  11. 11.RAJENDRA INDUKUMAR DAVE DIRECTOR

    Adv. U R DAVE

  12. 12.JUGALKISHOR P PAREKH DIRECTOR

    Adv. ABATED

  13. 13.ARVINDBHAI LAKSHMIDAS THAKKAR DIRECTOR

    Adv. U R DAVE

  14. 14.BHAGWANBHAI BACHUBHAI CHAUHAN DIRECTOR

    Adv. ABATED

  15. 15.PRAVINCHANDRA CHHAGANLAL THAKKAR DIRECTOR

    Adv. SERVED

  16. 16.HARENDRABHAI CHAMPAKLAL KAPADIYA DIRECTOR(Abated)

    Adv. ABATED

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 119/2025 The Gujarat High Court dismissed the State's criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of accused bank officials. The case involved allegations of financial irregularities at Bhavnagar Mercantile Cooperative Bank, where two loan accounts were allegedly closed irregularly by depositing funds without proper recovery. The trial court discharged the accused on July 28, 2025, finding no prima facie case against them. The High Court upheld this discharge, noting that the complainant's death and subsequent lack of prosecution evidence rendered continuation of proceedings unjustified, and that the trial court committed no jurisdictional error warranting intervention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  5. 03-Apr-2026

    Final Hearing

    Principal District Judge

  6. 30-Mar-2026

    Final Hearing

    Principal District Judge

  7. 20-Mar-2026

    Process To Respondents

    Principal District Judge

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Process To Respondents

    Principal District Judge

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Process To Respondents

    Principal District Judge

  10. 31-Jan-2026

    Process To Respondents

    Principal District Judge

  11. 27-Jan-2026

    Process To Respondents

    Principal District Judge

  12. 17-Jan-2026

    Process To Respondents

    Principal District Judge

  13. 12-Dec-2025

    Process To Respondents

    Principal District Judge

  14. 10-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 14-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 119/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 119/2025 The Gujarat High Court dismissed the State's criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of accused bank officials. The case involved allegations of financial irregularities at Bhavnagar Mercantile Cooperative Bank, where two loan accounts were allegedly closed irregularly by depositing funds without proper recovery. The trial court discharged the accused on July 28, 2025, finding no prima facie case against them. The High Court upheld this discharge, noting that the complainant's death and subsequent lack of prosecution evidence rendered continuation of proceedings unjustified, and that the trial court committed no jurisdictional error warranting intervention. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case