Roshanlal Jain Pyarelal Jain Through GPA Sandip Jain Roshanlal Jain vs The State Of Maharashtra Advocate - APP — 37/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 17th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHJN060003772026
e-Filing Number
05-03-2026
Filing Number
281/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
37/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Bhokardan
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOKARDAN..
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
FIR Number
81
Police Station
Bhokardan
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Roshanlal Jain Pyarelal Jain Through GPA Sandip Jain Roshanlal Jain
Adv. THALE DAGDU SANDU
Respondent(s)
The State Of Maharashtra Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. and J.M.F.C. BHOKARDAN..
Disposed
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
| 07-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed Roshanlal Jain's application for interim custody of a Tata Motors truck seized during criminal investigation, finding that the vehicle is registered in his name and is not necessary for prosecution. The court directed release of the vehicle upon submission of a Rs. 5,00,000 indemnity bond and current insurance policy, with conditions that the applicant cannot alienate or transfer the vehicle and must produce it as required, applying the Supreme Court principle that owners should not suffer from unused seized articles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed Roshanlal Jain's application for interim custody of a Tata Motors truck seized during criminal investigation, finding that the vehicle is registered in his name and is not necessary for prosecution. The court directed release of the vehicle upon submission of a Rs. 5,00,000 indemnity bond and current insurance policy, with conditions that the applicant cannot alienate or transfer the vehicle and must produce it as required, applying the Supreme Court principle that owners should not suffer from unused seized articles. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts