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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

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.

18-03-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Order

12-03-2026

Order

11-03-2026

Order

10-03-2026

Order

Final Orders / Judgements

18-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Saoner All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case