Sairam Suresh Ramgirwar vs State of Maharashtra Through P. S. O. Aheri. Advocate - DGP/AGP — 5/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 16th May 2026.
Cri.Rev.App.
CNR: MHGA130003692025
e-Filing Number
23-09-2025
Filing Number
318/2025
Filing Date
24-09-2025
Registration No
5/2025
Registration Date
24-09-2025
Court
District and Additional Sessions Court Aheri
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri
Decision Date
16th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
FIR Number
182
Police Station
Aheri
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sairam Suresh Ramgirwar
Adv. U.S.Galbale
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Through P. S. O. Aheri. Advocate - DGP/AGP
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Aheri
Disposed
Hearing
Awaiting Notice
Awaiting Notice
Awaiting Notice
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 02-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 16-04-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
| 12-03-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
| 29-01-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge allowed Sairam Ramgirwar's revision application and set aside the lower court's rejection of his vehicle release request, but conditioned release of the seized Tata Sumo on furnishing a bank guarantee or depositing Rs. 15 lakh. The court found the trial court erred by rejecting the application outright without offering the appellant an opportunity to provide security, as required under the Supreme Court's Jayprakash judgment, though it upheld that security was necessary given the vehicle was uninsured at the time of the fatal accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Sessions Judge allowed Sairam Ramgirwar's revision application and set aside the lower court's rejection of his vehicle release request, but conditioned release of the seized Tata Sumo on furnishing a bank guarantee or depositing Rs. 15 lakh. The court found the trial court erred by rejecting the application outright without offering the appellant an opportunity to provide security, as required under the Supreme Court's Jayprakash judgment, though it upheld that security was necessary given the vehicle was uninsured at the time of the fatal accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts