PANDE RATNESH RAMKUMAR vs State of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 192/2026

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: GJGS020008942026

Filing Number

192/2026

Filing Date

13-Mar-2026

Registration No

192/2026

Registration Date

13-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court, Veraval

Judge

8-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PANDE RATNESH RAMKUMAR

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary of Case 192/2026 - Pande Ratnesh Ramkumar v. State of Gujarat The court granted the petitioner's application under BNS Section 503 to recover funds (Rs. 401/- and Rs. 2,959/-) that were frozen in two bank accounts after a cyber fraud complaint. The court found that no FIR had been filed, no arrests made despite considerable time passing, and no other claimants came forward, while the investigating officer recommended returning the funds to the petitioner. The court ordered the banks to deposit the seized amounts into the petitioner's accounts, subject to conditions that the funds be produced before the court when required and returned if other legitimate claimants prove their rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 192/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 192/2026 - Pande Ratnesh Ramkumar v. State of Gujarat The court granted the petitioner's application under BNS Section 503 to recover funds (Rs. 401/- and Rs. 2,959/-) that were frozen in two bank accounts after a cyber fraud complaint. The court found that no FIR had been filed, no arrests made despite considerable time passing, and no other claimants came forward, while the investigating officer recommended returning the funds to the petitioner. The court ordered the banks to deposit the seized amounts into the petitioner's accounts, subject to conditions that the funds be produced before the court when required and returned if other legitimate claimants prove their rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case