Jitendra Hiraman Bawankule vs State of Maharashtra Through PSO Dugeepar Advocate - Chandwani M. S. — 5/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 16th April 2026.
Cri.Rev.App. - Criminal Revision Application
CNR: MHGO010000482026
e-Filing Number
06-01-2026
Filing Number
26/2026
Filing Date
06-Jan-2026
Registration No
5/2026
Registration Date
08-Jan-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Gondia
Judge
1-District Judge-I Addl.Sessions Judge Gondia.
Decision Date
16-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
Dugeepar
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Jitendra Hiraman Bawankule
Adv. ADV KUNDAN S RAMTEKE
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through PSO Dugeepar Advocate - Chandwani M. S.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Apr-2026
Order on Exhibit
Case Summary: The District Judge rejected Jitendra Hiraman Bawankule's criminal revision petition challenging the lower court's rejection of his application for interim custody of two trolleys (MH-35/F-3473 and MH-35/F-4375). The court found that the applicant was not the registered owner and failed to file any documents proving his entitlement to custody, while also noting he had filed a second application without challenging the first rejection order. The revision petition was disposed of as the impugned order was found to be proper. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Disposed
District Judge-I Addl.Sessions Judge Gondia.
-
09-Apr-2026
Hearing
District Judge-I Addl.Sessions Judge Gondia.
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge-I Addl.Sessions Judge Gondia.
-
27-Jan-2026
Awaiting Notice
District Judge-I Addl.Sessions Judge Gondia.
-
09-Jan-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Jan-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 5/2026
Case Summary: The District Judge rejected Jitendra Hiraman Bawankule's criminal revision petition challenging the lower court's rejection of his application for interim custody of two trolleys (MH-35/F-3473 and MH-35/F-4375). The court found that the applicant was not the registered owner and failed to file any documents proving his entitlement to custody, while also noting he had filed a second application without challenging the first rejection order. The revision petition was disposed of as the impugned order was found to be proper. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts