Madhav Tukaram More vs State Of Maharashtra — 66/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 17th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHLA090007912026

e-Filing Number

11-03-2026

Filing Number

400/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

66/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Udgir

Judge

1-1st Jt. Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C. Udgir

Decision Date

17-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

City Police Station Udgir

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Madhav Tukaram More

    Adv. SOMWAD DNYANOBA DILIP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 17-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court granted the petitioner Madhav Tukaram More's petition for return of his seized Toyota car (Crime No. 11/2026) on conditional bail, requiring him to furnish a bond of Rs. 9,00,000 to the police station and court, with the condition that he shall not transfer the vehicle to anyone until further court orders. The Magistrate accepted the petitioner's claim of daily necessity for the vehicle while rejecting the investigating officer's and government counsel's objections to its release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    1st Jt. Civil JudgeJ.D. J.M.F.C. Udgir

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 66/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court granted the petitioner Madhav Tukaram More's petition for return of his seized Toyota car (Crime No. 11/2026) on conditional bail, requiring him to furnish a bond of Rs. 9,00,000 to the police station and court, with the condition that he shall not transfer the vehicle to anyone until further court orders. The Magistrate accepted the petitioner's claim of daily necessity for the vehicle while rejecting the investigating officer's and government counsel's objections to its release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case