MEMAN LAMAHAMAD GAFURBHAI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P RAVAL — 15/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 10th March 2026.
CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
CNR: GJPT010003882026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
15/2026
Filing Date
20-02-2026
Registration No
15/2026
Registration Date
20-02-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT PATAN
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11217041250563
Police Station
SARASWATI POLICE STATION - PATAN DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MEMAN LAMAHAMAD GAFURBHAI
Adv. M D PANDYA
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P RAVAL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
URGENT HEARING
URGENT HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 06-03-2026 | URGENT HEARING | |
| 24-02-2026 | URGENT HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sessions Judge, Patan allowed the applicant's criminal revision application and directed the police to return his seized Maruti Swift car (GJ-18-BR-3428) as interim custody. The applicant had sold the vehicle to an accused person four months prior via verbal agreement but RTO ownership remained in his name; the car was seized during investigation and the trial court had rejected his custody request. The court found the trial court's order illegal and perverse, and ordered release upon furnishing a bail bond of 1.5 times the vehicle's value, with conditions that the applicant maintain the vehicle's original condition, not transfer/sell/mortgage it, and not use it in any offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sessions Judge, Patan allowed the applicant's criminal revision application and directed the police to return his seized Maruti Swift car (GJ-18-BR-3428) as interim custody. The applicant had sold the vehicle to an accused person four months prior via verbal agreement but RTO ownership remained in his name; the car was seized during investigation and the trial court had rejected his custody request. The court found the trial court's order illegal and perverse, and ordered release upon furnishing a bail bond of 1.5 times the vehicle's value, with conditions that the applicant maintain the vehicle's original condition, not transfer/sell/mortgage it, and not use it in any offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts