Vikas Vibhuti Mandal vs State Of Maharashtra Through By PSO Desaiganj — 24/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHGA050001252026

e-Filing Number

17-02-2026

Filing Number

106/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

24/2026

Registration Date

18-Feb-2026

Court

Civil and Criminal Court, Desaiganj

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 29-May-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

Desaiganj

Year

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

1.Vikas Vibhuti Mandal

Adv. AYESHA IQBALSHEKHANI

Respondent(s)

1.State Of Maharashtra Through By PSO Desaiganj

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
16-Mar-2026

Order on Exhibit

The court allowed Vikas Vibhuti Mandal's application to release Rs. 8,100 that was frozen in his bank account during a cyber crime investigation. The court found that the applicant had established prima facie ownership of the amount, no other claimant appeared, and following Supreme Court precedent, seized funds should not remain unnecessarily frozen; the court directed the bank to release the amount upon furnishing an indemnity bond. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
16-Mar-2026

Disposed

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
12-Mar-2026

Hearing

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
04-Mar-2026

Hearing

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
25-Feb-2026

Hearing

Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C. Desaiganj.
18-Feb-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
18-Feb-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 24/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed Vikas Vibhuti Mandal's application to release Rs. 8,100 that was frozen in his bank account during a cyber crime investigation. The court found that the applicant had established prima facie ownership of the amount, no other claimant appeared, and following Supreme Court precedent, seized funds should not remain unnecessarily frozen; the court directed the bank to release the amount upon furnishing an indemnity bond. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.