Sanju Shamrao Bete vs State of Maharashtra through Excise Department — 41/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 18th March 2026.
Cri.M.A.
CNR: MHNG090006332026
e-Filing Number
26-02-2026
Filing Number
543/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
41/2026
Registration Date
26-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Saoner
Judge
9-3rd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Saoner.
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
FIR Number
76
Police Station
KHAPA
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sanju Shamrao Bete
Adv. GAIKWAD GENDILAL BABULAL
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra through Excise Department
Hearing History
Judge: 9-3rd Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Saoner.
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | Order | |
| 12-03-2026 | Order | |
| 11-03-2026 | Order | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the applicant's petition to return his seized motorcycle (Xtreme 125 R ABS) seized under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, finding him to be the rightful owner based on verified registration and identity documents. The vehicle was ordered to be handed over subject to strict conditions including execution of an indemnity bond of Rs. 2,40,000, prohibition on sale or modification, and production in court as required, citing the Supreme Court principle that seized property should not remain in police custody with risk of deterioration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court allowed the applicant's petition to return his seized motorcycle (Xtreme 125 R ABS) seized under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, finding him to be the rightful owner based on verified registration and identity documents. The vehicle was ordered to be handed over subject to strict conditions including execution of an indemnity bond of Rs. 2,40,000, prohibition on sale or modification, and production in court as required, citing the Supreme Court principle that seized property should not remain in police custody with risk of deterioration. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts