DEPUTY MOHAMMED JOYEB vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 1228/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497,503,. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - J

CNR: GJDH020082562025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1228/2025

Filing Date

12-12-2025

Registration No

1228/2025

Registration Date

12-12-2025

Court

CIVIL COURT DAHOD

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 497,503,

Petitioner(s)

DEPUTY MOHAMMED JOYEB

Respondent(s)

Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

14-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

LOK ADALAT

31-01-2026

HEARING

05-01-2026

HEARING

24-12-2025

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

Summary The Dahod Chief Judicial Magistrate granted the applicant Deputy Mohammed Joyeb's petition under BNSS Section 497, ordering the release of Rs. 1,46,513 seized by police in a cyber fraud investigation, subject to conditions including furnishing a 1.5x indemnity bond and liability for double the amount if ownership cannot be proved in court. The court applied statutory provisions for return of seized property and emphasized the applicant's responsibility to repay funds if investigation reveals contrary ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Dahod Chief Judicial Magistrate granted the applicant Deputy Mohammed Joyeb's petition under BNSS Section 497, ordering the release of Rs. 1,46,513 seized by police in a cyber fraud investigation, subject to conditions including furnishing a 1.5x indemnity bond and liability for double the amount if ownership cannot be proved in court. The court applied statutory provisions for return of seized property and emphasized the applicant's responsibility to repay funds if investigation reveals contrary ownership. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CIVIL COURT DAHOD All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case