Amol Manohar Gate vs State Of Maharashtra — 63/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 11th March 2026.
Cri.M.A.
CNR: MHNG130005842026
e-Filing Number
26-02-2026
Filing Number
478/2026
Filing Date
27-Feb-2026
Registration No
63/2026
Registration Date
02-Mar-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Ramtek
Judge
1-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Last updated 12-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
197
Police Station
Ramtek
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Amol Manohar Gate
Adv. WAHANE SWATI HARICHAND
Respondent(s)
-
1.State Of Maharashtra
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
The court allowed the applicant's application for interim custody of a seized trolley, relying on the Supreme Court's Sunderbhai Desai precedent that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations indefinitely. The applicant was granted custody of the vehicle until trial conclusion upon filing an indemnity bond of Rs. 1,50,000 and subject to conditions including non-use for criminal purposes, production when required, and no creation of third-party interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.
-
10-Mar-2026
Order
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.
-
09-Mar-2026
Reply/Say
Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.
-
05-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 63/2026
The court allowed the applicant's application for interim custody of a seized trolley, relying on the Supreme Court's Sunderbhai Desai precedent that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations indefinitely. The applicant was granted custody of the vehicle until trial conclusion upon filing an indemnity bond of Rs. 1,50,000 and subject to conditions including non-use for criminal purposes, production when required, and no creation of third-party interests. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts