RAMBHAI NATHUBHAI VAGHELA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 47/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJPB030001972026

Filing Number

47/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

47/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT-RANAVAV

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 15-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

115

Police Station

RANAVAV POLICE STATION - PORBANDAR DISTRICT

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAMBHAI NATHUBHAI VAGHELA

    Adv. M A MANGHERA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate Court in Rajnandgaon dismissed the petitioner's interim application seeking recovery of a mobile phone (Y-17S model) allegedly seized by police during a cruelty case investigation. The court found that no mobile phone was actually seized by police in the case and that the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence (bill/warranty card) proving ownership, hence the interim relief application was rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Applicant

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 47/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The First Class Judicial Magistrate Court in Rajnandgaon dismissed the petitioner's interim application seeking recovery of a mobile phone (Y-17S model) allegedly seized by police during a cruelty case investigation. The court found that no mobile phone was actually seized by police in the case and that the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence (bill/warranty card) proving ownership, hence the interim relief application was rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case