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.

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438
Gujarat (Bombay) Prohibition Act, 1949 Section 65(a),65(e),81,98(2),108
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 336(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SACHIN ALIAS SALANG DAHYABHAI PARMAR

    Adv. V J WAGHELA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - DGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 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.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    11th Addl District Judge

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    11th Addl District Judge

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    11th Addl District Judge

  6. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 77/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case