State of Maharashtra PSO Shegaon Rural vs Sandip Wasudeo Pahurkar — 731/2020
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65a,65e. Status: N.B.W._Ready. Next hearing: 04th July 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHBU070013112020
Next Hearing
04th July 2026
Filing Number
1198/2020
Filing Date
05-10-2020
Registration No
731/2020
Registration Date
05-10-2020
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , shegaon
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Shegaon
FIR Details
FIR Number
227
Police Station
Shegaon Gramin
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra PSO Shegaon Rural
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Sandip Wasudeo Pahurkar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Shegaon
N.B.W._Ready
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-05-2026 | N.B.W._Ready |
| 11-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 15-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 19-09-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application for release of a seized Hero Splendor Pro motorcycle (Reg. No. MH-28-AD-9289) was allowed. The court ordered the motorcycle be released to applicant Sandip Wasudeo Pahurkar upon execution of a Suprtnama bond of Rs. 50,000, with conditions that he cannot create third-party interest, must not change the vehicle's identity, and must produce it at trial. The court rejected the prosecution's forfeiture argument under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, noting the Mustafa precedent was inapplicable as no confiscation proceedings were initiated before the Collector. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application for release of a seized Hero Splendor Pro motorcycle (Reg. No. MH-28-AD-9289) was allowed. The court ordered the motorcycle be released to applicant Sandip Wasudeo Pahurkar upon execution of a Suprtnama bond of Rs. 50,000, with conditions that he cannot create third-party interest, must not change the vehicle's identity, and must produce it at trial. The court rejected the prosecution's forfeiture argument under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, noting the Mustafa precedent was inapplicable as no confiscation proceedings were initiated before the Collector. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts