Swapnil Prabhakar Sutar vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - Asst.P.P — 20/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 01st April 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHKO140001812026
e-Filing Number
04-03-2026
Filing Number
110/2026
Filing Date
04-03-2026
Registration No
20/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court , Chandgad
Judge
1-C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Swapnil Prabhakar Sutar
Adv. C. S. Patil
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Advocate - Asst.P.P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J. D. and J.M.F.C. Chandgad
Disposed
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 24-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 20-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
| 16-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Swapnil Prabhakar Sutar v. State of Maharashtra (CRI.M.A. 20/2026) The court allowed the applicant's petition to recover Rs. 34,882 in cash seized by the Cyber Crime Branch, recognizing him as the lawful owner requiring the funds for maintenance. The court returned the seized cash on condition that the applicant execute a Supurtnama (bond) and comply with restrictions: not using the cash illegally, maintaining it in good condition, not transferring ownership to third parties, and making it available to investigating officers as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Swapnil Prabhakar Sutar v. State of Maharashtra (CRI.M.A. 20/2026) The court allowed the applicant's petition to recover Rs. 34,882 in cash seized by the Cyber Crime Branch, recognizing him as the lawful owner requiring the funds for maintenance. The court returned the seized cash on condition that the applicant execute a Supurtnama (bond) and comply with restrictions: not using the cash illegally, maintaining it in good condition, not transferring ownership to third parties, and making it available to investigating officers as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts