Santosh Babasaheb Shelar vs The State Of Maharshtra Advocate - Wakchaure S. A. — 2/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 12th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHAH070000142026
e-Filing Number
02-01-2026
Filing Number
4/2026
Filing Date
02-01-2026
Registration No
2/2026
Registration Date
02-01-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Sangamner
Judge
2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge, Sangamner
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
FIR Details
FIR Number
627
Police Station
Sangamner City Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Santosh Babasaheb Shelar
Adv. Ravindra Keshav Varpe
Respondent(s)
The State Of Maharshtra Advocate - Wakchaure S. A.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge, Sangamner
Disposed
Order
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Order | |
| 25-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court granted Santosh Babasaheb Shelar's petition and ordered release of his seized mobile phone (Model Y29, IMEI 8664230731966674) on an indemnity bond of Rs. 15,000, subject to conditions that he not modify, sell, or transfer the device and produce it when required by court or police. The court reasoned that prolonged police custody risked device deterioration and that trial completion would take considerable time, making custody with the applicant more appropriate under CrPC Sections 497-503. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court granted Santosh Babasaheb Shelar's petition and ordered release of his seized mobile phone (Model Y29, IMEI 8664230731966674) on an indemnity bond of Rs. 15,000, subject to conditions that he not modify, sell, or transfer the device and produce it when required by court or police. The court reasoned that prolonged police custody risked device deterioration and that trial completion would take considerable time, making custody with the applicant more appropriate under CrPC Sections 497-503. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts