Prakash Gajanan Jere vs State of Maharashtra through Hupari Police Station, Hupari — 47/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 25th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHKO050007502026
e-Filing Number
16-02-2026
Filing Number
571/2026
Filing Date
16-02-2026
Registration No
47/2026
Registration Date
18-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Ichalkaranji
Judge
5-5th Jt.Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Ichalkaranji
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
FIR Number
25
Police Station
Hupari Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prakash Gajanan Jere
Adv. PATIL SUNIL SHANKARRAO
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra through Hupari Police Station, Hupari
Hearing History
Judge: 5-5th Jt.Civil Judge Jr. Dn. J.M.F.C. Ichalkaranji
Disposed
Report
Report
Report
Report
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Report |
| 16-03-2026 | Report |
| 10-03-2026 | Report |
| 04-03-2026 | Report |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed Prakash Gajanan Jere's application for interim possession of his seized OnePlus 13R mobile phone under BNSS Sections 497 and 503, finding him the prima facie owner based on his purchase receipt. The court granted conditional interim custody until trial conclusion, requiring him to execute a Rs.42,000 indemnity bond, produce the device as directed, refrain from selling or modifying it, with the investigating officer extracting relevant data and documenting the handover via panchnama and photographs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court allowed Prakash Gajanan Jere's application for interim possession of his seized OnePlus 13R mobile phone under BNSS Sections 497 and 503, finding him the prima facie owner based on his purchase receipt. The court granted conditional interim custody until trial conclusion, requiring him to execute a Rs.42,000 indemnity bond, produce the device as directed, refrain from selling or modifying it, with the investigating officer extracting relevant data and documenting the handover via panchnama and photographs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts