Arjuns Hanumant Ghonse vs The State of Maharashtra — 7/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHLA160001112026

e-Filing Number

20-02-2026

Filing Number

54/2026

Filing Date

24-Feb-2026

Registration No

7/2026

Registration Date

24-Feb-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Deoni

Judge

1-Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

335

Police Station

excise

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Arjuns Hanumant Ghonse

    Adv. BIRADAR MAHADEV BHARAT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court allowed Arjun's application for interim custody of his seized Moto-G.85 mobile phone, finding he had established ownership through documentary evidence (bill and affidavit) and the prosecution did not contest ownership. The court ordered return of the device upon furnishing an Rs. 8,000 indemnity bond, with conditions that Arjun cannot alter or dispose of the phone until the underlying crime (Maharashtra Prohibition Act violation) is finally disposed and must produce it when required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    Cjjd and JMFC Deoni

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 7/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed Arjun's application for interim custody of his seized Moto-G.85 mobile phone, finding he had established ownership through documentary evidence (bill and affidavit) and the prosecution did not contest ownership. The court ordered return of the device upon furnishing an Rs. 8,000 indemnity bond, with conditions that Arjun cannot alter or dispose of the phone until the underlying crime (Maharashtra Prohibition Act violation) is finally disposed and must produce it when required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case