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.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJKT020018972026
Filing Number
499/2026
Filing Date
03-03-2026
Registration No
499/2026
Registration Date
03-03-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT BHUJ
Judge
2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
TRIVEDI DARSHANKUMAR BHARATKUMAR
Adv. M A GOHIL
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
Disposed
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 09-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts