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
25-02-2026
Registration No
38/2026
Registration Date
26-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Ausa
Judge
2-2nd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ausa.
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECREED
FIR Details
Police Station
Police StationBhada.
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Radhika Ranjit Chavhan
Adv. PATEL FAYYAJ SAMIM
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 2-2nd Jt.C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Ausa.
Disposed
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 13-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 07-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 02-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts