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
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
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
Disposed
ORDER
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | ORDER |
| 16-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 12-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 11-03-2026 | HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts