Kailas S/o Vaijinath Chavan vs State Through Police Inspector — 27/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHBI150002952026

e-Filing Number

04-03-2026

Filing Number

124/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

27/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Patoda

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C. Patoda.

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 25-May-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

Police Station Patoda.

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Kailas S/o Vaijinath Chavan

    Adv. Kankariya C.S.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Through Police Inspector

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court granted the petitioner's application to recover an Oppo A31 mobile phone (seized in FIR 321/2025 at Patoda Police Station under the Mumbai Gambling Act) by ordering its return upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 and compliance with specified conditions, including maintaining the phone's physical condition, producing it in court when required, and not using it in any other criminal matter. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent that seized items should not remain in police custody beyond 15 days to one month to prevent deterioration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C. Patoda.

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 27/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted the petitioner's application to recover an Oppo A31 mobile phone (seized in FIR 321/2025 at Patoda Police Station under the Mumbai Gambling Act) by ordering its return upon furnishing a bond of ₹10,000 and compliance with specified conditions, including maintaining the phone's physical condition, producing it in court when required, and not using it in any other criminal matter. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent that seized items should not remain in police custody beyond 15 days to one month to prevent deterioration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case