CHAUHAN SAIDABEN RANJITSINH vs THE STATE Advocate - APP — 111/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 451. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 27th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRMA J - CRIM. MISC. APPLICATION - JMFC

CNR: GJVD050007892026

Filing Number

111/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

111/2026

Registration Date

11-Mar-2026

Court

TALUKA COURT, SAVLI

Judge

4-Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

27-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 04-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

1111

Police Station

SAVLI POLICE STATION- VADODARA DISTRICT

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 451

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.CHAUHAN SAIDABEN RANJITSINH

    Adv. A K SAIYED

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Case 111/2026 Summary Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate approved the petitioner's request for custody of a seized mobile device (Vivo T1-X, IMEI 867125085738364) that was confiscated under the Gambling Act. The court ordered return of the device to the petitioner as the rightful owner, citing the Supreme Court precedent that seized property should be returned to the owner when justice permits, to prevent financial loss and disruption to the petitioner's personal and business affairs. Strict conditions were imposed: the petitioner must not use the phone, sell it, modify it, or use it for any unlawful purposes, with the police required to maintain records of the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  4. 24-Mar-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  5. 23-Mar-2026

    Process To Opponent

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 111/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 111/2026 Summary Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate approved the petitioner's request for custody of a seized mobile device (Vivo T1-X, IMEI 867125085738364) that was confiscated under the Gambling Act. The court ordered return of the device to the petitioner as the rightful owner, citing the Supreme Court precedent that seized property should be returned to the owner when justice permits, to prevent financial loss and disruption to the petitioner's personal and business affairs. Strict conditions were imposed: the petitioner must not use the phone, sell it, modify it, or use it for any unlawful purposes, with the police required to maintain records of the order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case