Husain Khan Sarfaraj Khan vs State Of Maharashtra — 1158/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A.

CNR: MHNG030065932026

e-Filing Number

02-03-2026

Filing Number

6593/2026

Filing Date

04-Mar-2026

Registration No

1158/2026

Registration Date

04-Mar-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate , Nagpur

Judge

13-6th Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Nagpur

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 12-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Husain Khan Sarfaraj Khan

    Adv. KHUMKAR PRAMOD JANKIRAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court allowed Husain Khan Sarfaraj Khan's application to recover his seized VIVO mobile handset, finding he was the rightful owner based on tax invoice and Aadhar card evidence, with no competing claims. The release was granted upon execution of a Rs. 30,000 indemnity bond and with conditions that he cannot sell or transfer the phone without court permission until case disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    6th Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Nagpur

  4. 20-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    6th Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Nagpur

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    6th Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Nagpur

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    6th Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Nagpur

  7. 10-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    6th Jt. C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Nagpur

  8. 04-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 04-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1158/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed Husain Khan Sarfaraj Khan's application to recover his seized VIVO mobile handset, finding he was the rightful owner based on tax invoice and Aadhar card evidence, with no competing claims. The release was granted upon execution of a Rs. 30,000 indemnity bond and with conditions that he cannot sell or transfer the phone without court permission until case disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case