KRUPALKUMAR HARESHBHAI JOGI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 372/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJGN010008352026

Filing Number

370/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

372/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT, GANDHINAGAR

Judge

4-6th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

Police Station

MANSA POLICE STATION - GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2014

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Indian Penal Code Section 379,328,411,114

Petitioner(s)

1.KRUPALKUMAR HARESHBHAI JOGI

Adv. M V CHAUDHARI

Respondent(s)

1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
11-Mar-2026

OrderView PDF

Summary The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, granted bail to the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 372/2026 in a theft case (Section 379 IPC). The court found that the seized gold ornaments (gold chain and bracelet) allegedly belonged to the applicant, not the actual theft victim, and the accused had not claimed the seized items despite police custody since 2014. The court imposed conditions including a bail bond of ₹1,45,000, quarterly court verification of the ornaments, and the applicant's presence as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
11-Mar-2026

Disposed

6th Addl District Judge
10-Mar-2026

Order

6th Addl District Judge
09-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
06-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 372/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, granted bail to the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 372/2026 in a theft case (Section 379 IPC). The court found that the seized gold ornaments (gold chain and bracelet) allegedly belonged to the applicant, not the actual theft victim, and the accused had not claimed the seized items despite police custody since 2014. The court imposed conditions including a bail bond of ₹1,45,000, quarterly court verification of the ornaments, and the applicant's presence as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.