MUTVA JUNAS UMEDALI vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP — 10/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 438,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.
CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
CNR: GJMR010002412026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
10/2026
Filing Date
04-02-2026
Registration No
10/2026
Registration Date
04-02-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT,MORBI
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
448
Police Station
HALVAD POLICE STATION - MORBI DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MUTVA JUNAS UMEDALI
Adv. S A SUMRA
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER
NOTICE TO OPPONENTS
NOTICE TO OPPONENTS
NOTICE TO OPPONENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | ORDER | |
| 09-03-2026 | NOTICE TO OPPONENTS | |
| 02-03-2026 | NOTICE TO OPPONENTS | |
| 26-02-2026 | NOTICE TO OPPONENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sessions Court in Morbi, Gujarat, allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Mutvaa Junas Umedalli, a livestock farmer, ordering the return of 21 seized animals (19 goats and 2 sheep) to the appellant. The court found that the appellant was the legitimate owner with proper documentation, and that prolonged detention of live animals in custody causes them unnecessary harm and financial loss; following established Supreme Court precedent, the court directed return of the animals subject to the appellant depositing security and paying shelter maintenance fees, while rejecting the police's argument that seizure was necessary for investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sessions Court in Morbi, Gujarat, allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Mutvaa Junas Umedalli, a livestock farmer, ordering the return of 21 seized animals (19 goats and 2 sheep) to the appellant. The court found that the appellant was the legitimate owner with proper documentation, and that prolonged detention of live animals in custody causes them unnecessary harm and financial loss; following established Supreme Court precedent, the court directed return of the animals subject to the appellant depositing security and paying shelter maintenance fees, while rejecting the police's argument that seizure was necessary for investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts