BANGMOY DEBDAS CHAKRAVARTI vs Government of Gujarat — 96/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 480,. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 11th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLN - JMFC
CNR: GJNR020008432026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
96/2026
Filing Date
09-03-2026
Registration No
96/2026
Registration Date
09-03-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT RAJPIPLA
Judge
7-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
1906
Police Station
RAJPIPLA POLICE STATION- NARMADA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BANGMOY DEBDAS CHAKRAVARTI
Adv. P A PATEL
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat
Hearing History
Judge: 7-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Disposed
HEARING P.P.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | HEARING P.P. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: This is a Criminal Revision Application (CRMA 96/2026) from Gujarat High Court regarding land-related criminal charges against the applicant. The court found that while an FIR was registered against the applicant for misappropriating bank funds totaling approximately ₹1.93 crores through fraudulent ATM transactions, the charge sheet lacked sufficient evidence directly linking the applicant to the criminal conduct. The court held that since the applicant's role in the alleged crime was not substantiated by credible evidence in the investigation record, the applicant could not be denied property rights based merely on the existence of charges; accordingly, the court ordered to restore the applicant's land rights subject to certain conditions to be observed during the pendency of criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a Criminal Revision Application (CRMA 96/2026) from Gujarat High Court regarding land-related criminal charges against the applicant. The court found that while an FIR was registered against the applicant for misappropriating bank funds totaling approximately ₹1.93 crores through fraudulent ATM transactions, the charge sheet lacked sufficient evidence directly linking the applicant to the criminal conduct. The court held that since the applicant's role in the alleged crime was not substantiated by credible evidence in the investigation record, the applicant could not be denied property rights based merely on the existence of charges; accordingly, the court ordered to restore the applicant's land rights subject to certain conditions to be observed during the pendency of criminal proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts