THAKOR ROHITKUMAR PRATAPJI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 110/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497,503,. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 25th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJPT020007502026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
110/2026
Filing Date
28-01-2026
Registration No
110/2026
Registration Date
28-01-2026
Court
CIVIL COURT PATAN
Judge
11-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THAKOR ROHITKUMAR PRATAPJI
Adv. U G KELA
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
BANK OF INDIA
AXIS BANK
BANK OF BARODA(INCLDING VIJAYA BANK AND DENA BANK)
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Hearing History
Judge: 11-CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE
Disposed
ORDER/JUDGEMENT
REPLY OF I.O.
REPLY OF I.O.
REPLY OF I.O.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 17-03-2026 | ORDER/JUDGEMENT | |
| 07-03-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. | |
| 24-02-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. | |
| 09-02-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Patan allowed the applicant's application under Section 503 of BNSS and directed refund of Rs. 10,000/- that was fraudulently withdrawn via cyber crime and frozen in multiple bank accounts. The court found the frozen bank accounts were fake, no FIR was lodged, and only the victim claimed the money, justifying its return upon furnishing personal bond and surety of 1.5 times the amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Patan allowed the applicant's application under Section 503 of BNSS and directed refund of Rs. 10,000/- that was fraudulently withdrawn via cyber crime and frozen in multiple bank accounts. The court found the frozen bank accounts were fake, no FIR was lodged, and only the victim claimed the money, justifying its return upon furnishing personal bond and surety of 1.5 times the amount. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts