Rutik Alias Ritik Bharat Atram vs State Of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer — 29/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

Other Misc.Cri.Appln

CNR: MHCH160006812026

e-Filing Number

16-03-2026

Filing Number

620/2026

Filing Date

18-Mar-2026

Registration No

29/2026

Registration Date

18-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division , Warora

Judge

2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Warora.

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 23-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rutik Alias Ritik Bharat Atram

    Adv. JIILATE SHAILENDRA MACHINDRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case 29/2026 Summary The court allowed Rutik Bharat Atram's application for interim custody of his seized Redmi A3X mobile phone, finding he established ownership through verified mobile bills and Aadhar card documentation. The court ordered the investigating officer to return the phone upon execution of a ₹9,000 indemnity bond, subject to conditions that the applicant not alienate or alter the device and cooperate fully with ongoing investigation into the Maharashtra Prohibition Act offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Warora.

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Order

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Warora.

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Warora.

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 18-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 29/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case 29/2026 Summary The court allowed Rutik Bharat Atram's application for interim custody of his seized Redmi A3X mobile phone, finding he established ownership through verified mobile bills and Aadhar card documentation. The court ordered the investigating officer to return the phone upon execution of a ₹9,000 indemnity bond, subject to conditions that the applicant not alienate or alter the device and cooperate fully with ongoing investigation into the Maharashtra Prohibition Act offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case