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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 438,

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

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

18-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT,MORBI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case