Shailesh Bhikulal Jaiswal vs State of Maharashtra — 52/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 09th April 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHAU060003932026
e-Filing Number
17-02-2026
Filing Number
296/2026
Filing Date
17-02-2026
Registration No
52/2026
Registration Date
18-02-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court, Kannad
Judge
2-JT.CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KANNAD
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
Police Station
Pishore
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shailesh Bhikulal Jaiswal
Adv. Borse Sanjay S.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JT.CIVIL JUDGE J.D. J.M.F.C. KANNAD
Disposed
Order
Documents
Documents
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-04-2026 | Order |
| 06-04-2026 | Documents |
| 04-04-2026 | Documents |
| 02-04-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Criminal M.A. No. 52/2026 The court allowed Shailesh Jaiswal's application for interim custody of a seized Realmi 7 Pro mobile phone, finding he was the legitimate owner based on purchase documentation. The court reasoned that keeping the property idle at the police station would cause him economic loss and that returning it subject to conditions would not harm the prosecution. Jaiswal was granted custody on executing a ₹25,000 indemnity bond, with strict conditions: he must produce the phone when directed, cannot alter or alienate it, and faces forfeiture of the bond if conditions are breached. The investigating officer must photograph and document the handover via panchanama. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Criminal M.A. No. 52/2026 The court allowed Shailesh Jaiswal's application for interim custody of a seized Realmi 7 Pro mobile phone, finding he was the legitimate owner based on purchase documentation. The court reasoned that keeping the property idle at the police station would cause him economic loss and that returning it subject to conditions would not harm the prosecution. Jaiswal was granted custody on executing a ₹25,000 indemnity bond, with strict conditions: he must produce the phone when directed, cannot alter or alienate it, and faces forfeiture of the bond if conditions are breached. The investigating officer must photograph and document the handover via panchanama. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts