TRIVEDI DARSHANKUMAR BHARATKUMAR vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 499/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497,503. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJKT020018972026

Filing Number

499/2026

Filing Date

03-Mar-2026

Registration No

499/2026

Registration Date

03-Mar-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT BHUJ

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

13-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497,503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TRIVEDI DARSHANKUMAR BHARATKUMAR

    Adv. M A GOHIL

Respondent(s)

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhuj allowed the application of a cybercrime victim seeking release of Rs. 17,400 frozen in multiple bank accounts, holding that the investigating officer failed to comply with Section 106(3) BNSS by not notifying the magistrate of the seizure. The court ordered the banks to release the funds to the applicant upon furnishing a bond and surety, and directed banks to comply with court orders without demanding NOC from other investigating agencies, establishing important precedent for protecting cybercrime victims' rightful recovery of defrauded funds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 10-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 09-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  8. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 03-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 499/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bhuj allowed the application of a cybercrime victim seeking release of Rs. 17,400 frozen in multiple bank accounts, holding that the investigating officer failed to comply with Section 106(3) BNSS by not notifying the magistrate of the seizure. The court ordered the banks to release the funds to the applicant upon furnishing a bond and surety, and directed banks to comply with court orders without demanding NOC from other investigating agencies, establishing important precedent for protecting cybercrime victims' rightful recovery of defrauded funds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case