SHAH BAKUL KIRTI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 30/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION

CNR: GJKT010010802026

Filing Number

30/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

30/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BHUJ

Judge

31-8th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHAH BAKUL KIRTI

    Adv. M N BOKHANI

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh rejected the criminal revision application of Shah Bakul Kriti seeking return of his seized laptop and mobile phone. The court upheld the trial court's order, holding that the devices constitute primary evidence in a Railway Act offense and must remain in police custody to prevent evidence tampering, despite the applicant's ownership claims and Cyber Cell investigation completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    8th Addl District Judge

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    8th Addl District Judge

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Notice To Opponents

    8th Addl District Judge

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 30/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh rejected the criminal revision application of Shah Bakul Kriti seeking return of his seized laptop and mobile phone. The court upheld the trial court's order, holding that the devices constitute primary evidence in a Railway Act offense and must remain in police custody to prevent evidence tampering, despite the applicant's ownership claims and Cyber Cell investigation completion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case