HALAI M SHAHIL ASLAMBHAI vs State of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 134/2026

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

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATI- JMFC

CNR: GJGS020005872026

Filing Number

134/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

134/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court, Veraval

Judge

8-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 21-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HALAI M SHAHIL ASLAMBHAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gir-Somnath granted the applicant's petition under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to recover ₹10,000 that was frozen in a bank account following a cybercrime complaint. The court found that money had been fraudulently transferred from the applicant's account to a suspicious account, and since no FIR was filed, no arrests were made, and no other claimant came forward, the applicant was entitled to recover the seized funds on furnishing bonds and subject to conditions that the amount be returned if legitimate claims arise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 134/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Gir-Somnath granted the applicant's petition under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to recover ₹10,000 that was frozen in a bank account following a cybercrime complaint. The court found that money had been fraudulently transferred from the applicant's account to a suspicious account, and since no FIR was filed, no arrests were made, and no other claimant came forward, the applicant was entitled to recover the seized funds on furnishing bonds and subject to conditions that the amount be returned if legitimate claims arise. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case