NATWARSINH URFE NATUBHA VAJUBHA GOHIL vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 213/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA S - CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION - SESSIONS

CNR: GJSN010004102026

Filing Number

213/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

213/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURENDRANAGAR

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 15-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 109(1),121(1),132,221,54

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NATWARSINH URFE NATUBHA VAJUBHA GOHIL

    Adv. M R GADHAVI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The Sessions Court of Surendranagar rejected the petitioner's application under CrPC Section 483 seeking release of agricultural land held as security. The court found that while the petitioner had valid reasons for seeking release (children's education and medical needs, economic hardship), the petitioner himself had mortgaged the land and no exceptional circumstances warranted deviation from normal procedure, thus dismissing the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Order

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 213/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Sessions Court of Surendranagar rejected the petitioner's application under CrPC Section 483 seeking release of agricultural land held as security. The court found that while the petitioner had valid reasons for seeking release (children's education and medical needs, economic hardship), the petitioner himself had mortgaged the land and no exceptional circumstances warranted deviation from normal procedure, thus dismissing the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case