HANSABEN SHANTILAL PATEL (M- vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP — 324/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINALMISC. APPLICATION-JMFC

CNR: GJNV020030022026

Filing Number

324/2026

Filing Date

25-Feb-2026

Registration No

324/2026

Registration Date

25-Feb-2026

Court

CIVIL COURT, NAVSARI

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11822023240803

Police Station

MAROLI POLICE STATION - NAVSARI DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Petitioner(s)

1.HANSABEN SHANTILAL PATEL (M-

Respondent(s)

1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
09-Mar-2026

OrderView PDF

The court granted the petitioner's application and ordered the return of two VIVO INDIA mobile phones (with IMEI nos. 865100052449313 and 865100052449305) seized in a criminal case, to be held in the petitioner's custody during the pendency of the case. The return was conditioned upon the petitioner furnishing a bond equal to double the value of the phones and adhering to specified conditions, including not selling, mortgaging, or transferring the devices and producing them whenever required by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
09-Mar-2026

Disposed

Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM
06-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
25-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 324/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted the petitioner's application and ordered the return of two VIVO INDIA mobile phones (with IMEI nos. 865100052449313 and 865100052449305) seized in a criminal case, to be held in the petitioner's custody during the pendency of the case. The return was conditioned upon the petitioner furnishing a bond equal to double the value of the phones and adhering to specified conditions, including not selling, mortgaging, or transferring the devices and producing them whenever required by the court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.