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

Case disposed

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

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

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

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

11-03-2026
ORDER

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, JAMKANDORNA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case