RAVI MUNNA VADECHA (DEVIPUJAK) vs GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP — 358/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJKT110016362026

Case disposed

Filing Number

358/2026

Filing Date

23-02-2026

Registration No

358/2026

Registration Date

23-02-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, GANDHIDHAM

Judge

33-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

25th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

FIR Details

FIR Number

11993002260046

Police Station

ADIPUR POLICE STATION - KACHCHH DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 497

Petitioner(s)

RAVI MUNNA VADECHA (DEVIPUJAK)

Adv. K D RATHOD

Respondent(s)

GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Hearing History

Judge: 33-4th ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

25-03-2026

Disposed

23-03-2026

ORDER

20-03-2026

ORDER

18-03-2026

ORDER

16-03-2026

HEARING

Final Orders / Judgements

25-03-2026
ORDER

The court allowed the application and granted interim custody of the seized OPPO K 12 X mobile phone to the applicant, ruling that seized articles should not be retained at police stations for prolonged periods beyond 15 days to one month, citing Supreme Court precedent. The applicant must deposit 1½ times the mobile's value as surety and comply with conditions including ownership verification, non-transfer of the device, and production when required by the court or investigating officer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the application and granted interim custody of the seized OPPO K 12 X mobile phone to the applicant, ruling that seized articles should not be retained at police stations for prolonged periods beyond 15 days to one month, citing Supreme Court precedent. The applicant must deposit 1½ times the mobile's value as surety and comply with conditions including ownership verification, non-transfer of the device, and production when required by the court or investigating officer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, GANDHIDHAM All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case