KISHORBHAI NATHABHAI PARMAR vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP — 5/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 11th March 2026.
CRMA J - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC
CNR: GJRJ080000112026
Filing Number
5/2026
Filing Date
09-01-2026
Registration No
5/2026
Registration Date
09-01-2026
Court
TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
FIR Details
FIR Number
11213020260005
Police Station
JAMKANDORANA POLICE STATION - RAJKOT DISTRICT
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KISHORBHAI NATHABHAI PARMAR
Adv. P R KOYANI
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT
REPLY OF I.O.
REPLY OF I.O.
REPLY OF I.O.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT |
| 21-02-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. |
| 16-02-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. |
| 05-02-2026 | REPLY OF I.O. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court approved the petitioner's plea and granted custody of a seized Vivo mobile phone (Model Y91 3+32, IMEI 860386042495418) to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions. The court held that since the phone had been in police possession for an extended period with risk of technical damage and battery deterioration, and the phone's legitimate use was obstructed, returning it to the petitioner was justified pending final case disposition, provided the petitioner maintains the phone's condition and does not use it for unlawful purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court approved the petitioner's plea and granted custody of a seized Vivo mobile phone (Model Y91 3+32, IMEI 860386042495418) to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions. The court held that since the phone had been in police possession for an extended period with risk of technical damage and battery deterioration, and the phone's legitimate use was obstructed, returning it to the petitioner was justified pending final case disposition, provided the petitioner maintains the phone's condition and does not use it for unlawful purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts