Radhika Ranjit Chavhan vs State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP — 38/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED on 25th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHLA140005862026
e-Filing Number
25-02-2026
Filing Number
224/2026
Filing Date
25-Feb-2026
Registration No
38/2026
Registration Date
26-Feb-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Ausa
Judge
2-2nd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ausa.
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECREED
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
Police StationBhada.
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Radhika Ranjit Chavhan
Adv. PATEL FAYYAJ SAMIM
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Case 38/2026 Summary: The court granted Radhika Ranjit Chavhan's application for interim custody of her TVS Jupiter scooter (MH-24-BK-8799) seized in a Maharashtra Prohibition Act case, finding her verified ownership documents established clear entitlement. The court imposed a ₹50,000 bond and strict conditions—prohibiting sale, transfer, color change, or third-party interest without court permission, requiring production on demand, and noting final custody would be determined at trial conclusion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Disposed
2nd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ausa.
-
17-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
2nd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ausa.
-
13-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
2nd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ausa.
-
07-Mar-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
2nd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ausa.
-
02-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
25-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 38/2026
Case 38/2026 Summary: The court granted Radhika Ranjit Chavhan's application for interim custody of her TVS Jupiter scooter (MH-24-BK-8799) seized in a Maharashtra Prohibition Act case, finding her verified ownership documents established clear entitlement. The court imposed a ₹50,000 bond and strict conditions—prohibiting sale, transfer, color change, or third-party interest without court permission, requiring production on demand, and noting final custody would be determined at trial conclusion. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts