Sakharam Maroti Dhumal vs state of Maharashtra — 55/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHBI090003042026

e-Filing Number

26-02-2026

Filing Number

304/2026

Filing Date

27-Feb-2026

Registration No

55/2026

Registration Date

27-Feb-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Majalgaon

Judge

2-2nd JMFC, Majalgaon.

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sakharam Maroti Dhumal

    Adv. Hormale A D

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.state of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The 2nd Joint Civil Court in Majalgaon granted bail to the petitioner in a motor vehicle theft case under IPC Section 503 (2023), subject to furnishing a solvent surety of ₹5,00,000 and a personal bond of ₹4,00,000. The court held that since the vehicle was seized in connection with an offense, the petitioner (vehicle owner) is entitled to its return upon providing adequate security, as per Supreme Court precedent that vehicle owners cannot be denied possession merely because the vehicle is involved in a case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    2nd JMFC, Majalgaon.

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    2nd JMFC, Majalgaon.

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    W.S. and Say

    2nd JMFC, Majalgaon.

  6. 02-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 27-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 55/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The 2nd Joint Civil Court in Majalgaon granted bail to the petitioner in a motor vehicle theft case under IPC Section 503 (2023), subject to furnishing a solvent surety of ₹5,00,000 and a personal bond of ₹4,00,000. The court held that since the vehicle was seized in connection with an offense, the petitioner (vehicle owner) is entitled to its return upon providing adequate security, as per Supreme Court precedent that vehicle owners cannot be denied possession merely because the vehicle is involved in a case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case