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
Filing Number
1228/2025
Filing Date
12-Dec-2025
Registration No
1228/2025
Registration Date
12-Dec-2025
Court
CIVIL COURT DAHOD
Judge
1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOK ADALAT
Last updated 03-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DEPUTY MOHAMMED JOYEB
Respondent(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
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.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
07-Mar-2026
Lok Adalat
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
31-Jan-2026
Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
05-Jan-2026
Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
24-Dec-2025
Hearing
Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
-
16-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 1228/2025
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.
Explore other courts