Samirkhan Saiyadkhan Kureshi vs Maharashtra Shasan Tarfe Pimpalner Police Station — 37/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 09th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHDH050002062026
e-Filing Number
03-02-2026
Filing Number
162/2026
Filing Date
03-02-2026
Registration No
37/2026
Registration Date
03-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Sakri
Judge
13-Jt Civil Judge JD and JMFC Sakri
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
FIR Number
0017
Police Station
Sakri
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Samirkhan Saiyadkhan Kureshi
Adv. Mavali Sanjay I.
Respondent(s)
Maharashtra Shasan Tarfe Pimpalner Police Station
Hearing History
Judge: 13-Jt Civil Judge JD and JMFC Sakri
Disposed
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Awaiting Notice
Awaiting Notice
Awaiting Notice
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 21-02-2026 | Awaiting Notice | |
| 12-02-2026 | Awaiting Notice | |
| 09-02-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court granted interim custody of a seized vehicle (Mahindra Bolero, Reg. No. MH-43-BB-0496) to its owner Sameerkhan Kureshi under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the vehicle being seized in connection with illegal animal transportation. The court imposed strict conditions including a ₹2,00,000 indemnity bond, prohibition on selling/mortgaging the vehicle, and mandatory production when directed, while rejecting the investigating officer's and prosecution's concerns about future misuse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court granted interim custody of a seized vehicle (Mahindra Bolero, Reg. No. MH-43-BB-0496) to its owner Sameerkhan Kureshi under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the vehicle being seized in connection with illegal animal transportation. The court imposed strict conditions including a ₹2,00,000 indemnity bond, prohibition on selling/mortgaging the vehicle, and mandatory production when directed, while rejecting the investigating officer's and prosecution's concerns about future misuse. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts