SACHIN ALIAS SALANG DAHYABHAI PARMAR vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP — 77/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 27th March 2026.
CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
CNR: GJVD010014402026
Filing Number
77/2026
Filing Date
24-Feb-2026
Registration No
77/2026
Registration Date
24-Feb-2026
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT VADODARA
Judge
6-11th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
27-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 04-Jul-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
11196043250693
Police Station
KAPURAI POLICE STATION - VADODARA DISTRICT
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SACHIN ALIAS SALANG DAHYABHAI PARMAR
Adv. V J WAGHELA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
27-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Summary of Case 77/2026 Case: Criminal Revision Appeal No. 77/2026 Court: 11th Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara Petitioner: Sachin alias Salang Dahyabhay Parmar Respondent: State of Gujarat Decision The court allowed the revision petition and overturned the trial court's order, directing the return of a seized iPhone 13 (IMEI 80320911) to the petitioner subject to specified conditions. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's request to recover his personal mobile phone, citing concerns that the accused might use it to commit further crimes related to the liquor prohibition case (FIR No. 11196043250693/2025 under Prohibition Act sections 6(a)(i), 81, 98(2), 108, and BNS section 336(3)). Key Reasoning The court found that: (1) the petitioner is the rightful owner (evidenced by mobile bill); (2) no other claimant exists; (3) police provided no evidence that the phone contained case-related data requiring seizure; (4) there was no nexus between the phone's use and the liquor prohibition offense; and (5) prolonged custody risks device deterioration. Applying the *Sundarlal Ambalalal Desai v. State of Gujarat* principle, the court ordered return under strict conditions including a bond requirement and restrictions on selling or using the device for unlawful purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
27-Mar-2026
Disposed
11th Addl District Judge
-
24-Mar-2026
Judgement
11th Addl District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Judgement
11th Addl District Judge
-
07-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 77/2026
Summary of Case 77/2026 Case: Criminal Revision Appeal No. 77/2026 Court: 11th Additional Sessions Court, Vadodara Petitioner: Sachin alias Salang Dahyabhay Parmar Respondent: State of Gujarat Decision The court allowed the revision petition and overturned the trial court's order, directing the return of a seized iPhone 13 (IMEI 80320911) to the petitioner subject to specified conditions. The trial court had rejected the petitioner's request to recover his personal mobile phone, citing concerns that the accused might use it to commit further crimes related to the liquor prohibition case (FIR No. 11196043250693/2025 under Prohibition Act sections 6(a)(i), 81, 98(2), 108, and BNS section 336(3)). Key Reasoning The court found that: (1) the petitioner is the rightful owner (evidenced by mobile bill); (2) no other claimant exists; (3) police provided no evidence that the phone contained case-related data requiring seizure; (4) there was no nexus between the phone's use and the liquor prohibition offense; and (5) prolonged custody risks device deterioration. Applying the *Sundarlal Ambalalal Desai v. State of Gujarat* principle, the court ordered return under strict conditions including a bond requirement and restrictions on selling or using the device for unlawful purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts