PATEL ARVIND ABHUBHAI vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP — 125/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 20th March 2026.

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJKT100005712026

Case disposed

Filing Number

125/2026

Filing Date

09-03-2026

Registration No

125/2026

Registration Date

09-03-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANJAR

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

Decision Date

20th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11993003260225

Police Station

ANJAR POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 497

Petitioner(s)

PATEL ARVIND ABHUBHAI

Adv. G S SHEKH

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM

20-03-2026

Disposed

18-03-2026

ORDER

16-03-2026

HEARING

12-03-2026

HEARING

11-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

20-03-2026
ORDER

Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Anjar, Kutch rejected the petitioner's application seeking return of seized animals (3 buffaloes and 1 calf, bearing reference numbers 03, 01, and 04) in a case involving animal cruelty charges under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act sections 11(1)(a), (d), (e), (f), (h), and (k). The court found insufficient documentary evidence of the petitioner's ownership of the animals, as the gram panchayat certificates did not establish clear ownership, and therefore refused to return the seized animals without a no-claim affidavit from the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Anjar, Kutch rejected the petitioner's application seeking return of seized animals (3 buffaloes and 1 calf, bearing reference numbers 03, 01, and 04) in a case involving animal cruelty charges under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act sections 11(1)(a), (d), (e), (f), (h), and (k). The court found insufficient documentary evidence of the petitioner's ownership of the animals, as the gram panchayat certificates did not establish clear ownership, and therefore refused to return the seized animals without a no-claim affidavit from the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, ANJAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case