RUSHIKESH SATISH NAVGIRE POWER OF ATTORNEY HIREN MANOJBHAI MAHETA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP — 12/2026

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 438. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION

CNR: GJSR190002732026

Filing Number

12/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

12/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, BARDOLI

Judge

1-3rd Addl District Judge

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

11214023232037

Police Station

KADODARA GIDC POLICE STATION - SURAT DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 438
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(A)E,98(2),116(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RUSHIKESH SATISH NAVGIRE POWER OF ATTORNEY HIREN MANOJBHAI MAHETA

    Adv. P I JODHPURIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dismissed the applicant's Criminal Revision Application challenging the trial court's rejection of his request for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The court held that since 297 liters of illegal liquor was recovered from the vehicle—far exceeding the 20-liter threshold under the Prohibition Act—Section 98(2) mandates confiscation, and the vehicle cannot be released pending trial, making the trial court's order legally sound and requiring no interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    3rd Addl District Judge

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 02-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 12/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat dismissed the applicant's Criminal Revision Application challenging the trial court's rejection of his request for interim custody of a seized vehicle. The court held that since 297 liters of illegal liquor was recovered from the vehicle—far exceeding the 20-liter threshold under the Prohibition Act—Section 98(2) mandates confiscation, and the vehicle cannot be released pending trial, making the trial court's order legally sound and requiring no interference. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case