HARDIKKUMAR ASHOKBHAI SHAH DIRECTOR OF SHAH INVESTMENT vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P DOBARIYA — 59/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 22nd April 2026.

Case disposed

GPID CRMA - GPID CRIMINAL MISC. APPL.

CNR: GJSR010037202026

Filing Number

60/2026

Filing Date

20-Mar-2026

Registration No

59/2026

Registration Date

20-Mar-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT

Judge

1-Principal District & Sessions Judge

Decision Date

22-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 05-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

3

Police Station

CID CRIME POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316(5),318(4),61
The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 Section 21(1),(2)(3),23,25(1),25(3)(A)(B)
Gujarat Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 2003 Section 3

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARDIKKUMAR ASHOKBHAI SHAH DIRECTOR OF SHAH INVESTMENT

    Adv. V S CHALIAWALA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - R P DOBARIYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 59/2026 Case: Hardikkumar Ashokbhai Shah (Director, Shah's Investment) v. Government of Gujarat Court Decision: The Session Court in Surat granted the petitioner's plea under IPC Section 497 for recovery of seized property. The court ordered the return of a Dell tablet (Model No. 7992 SN TMN) seized in a criminal case, subject to conditions including: (1) the petitioner must not transfer the item; (2) the petitioner must maintain it in its current condition; (3) the petitioner must produce it before the court when required; and (4) a photographic record must be created and maintained with investigating officers. Key Reasoning: The court found that the seized electronic device was the petitioner's personal property essential for business operations, with documented ownership bills. Since the criminal investigation was complete and the device's retention posed no evidentiary risk, conditional release was justified to prevent undue hardship to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  5. 18-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  7. 07-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  8. 02-Apr-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  9. 27-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Principal District & Sessions Judge

  10. 24-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 20-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 59/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 59/2026 Case: Hardikkumar Ashokbhai Shah (Director, Shah's Investment) v. Government of Gujarat Court Decision: The Session Court in Surat granted the petitioner's plea under IPC Section 497 for recovery of seized property. The court ordered the return of a Dell tablet (Model No. 7992 SN TMN) seized in a criminal case, subject to conditions including: (1) the petitioner must not transfer the item; (2) the petitioner must maintain it in its current condition; (3) the petitioner must produce it before the court when required; and (4) a photographic record must be created and maintained with investigating officers. Key Reasoning: The court found that the seized electronic device was the petitioner's personal property essential for business operations, with documented ownership bills. Since the criminal investigation was complete and the device's retention posed no evidentiary risk, conditional release was justified to prevent undue hardship to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case