NARENDRBHAI JAGDISHBHAI MER vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - AGP — 248/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLI- SESSIONS

CNR: GJMR010004952026

Filing Number

248/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

248/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Court

DISTRICT COURT,MORBI

Judge

1-2nd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

10-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1085

Police Station

MORBI A DIV POLICE STATION- MORBI DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NARENDRBHAI JAGDISHBHAI MER

    Adv. F J OZA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - AGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi conditionally allowed the applicant's petition to obtain interim custody of his seized Vivo X70 Pro mobile phone (IMEI: 868265058464959). The court found the applicant's ownership established through a purchase bill, and determined that the investigation did not require further custody of the device. The phone was released on the applicant furnishing a personal bond of 1.5 times the device's assessed value with a surety, subject to conditions prohibiting its use in crimes, sale, or transfer without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd Addl District Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Order

    2nd Addl District Judge

  5. 03-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 248/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi conditionally allowed the applicant's petition to obtain interim custody of his seized Vivo X70 Pro mobile phone (IMEI: 868265058464959). The court found the applicant's ownership established through a purchase bill, and determined that the investigation did not require further custody of the device. The phone was released on the applicant furnishing a personal bond of 1.5 times the device's assessed value with a surety, subject to conditions prohibiting its use in crimes, sale, or transfer without court permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case