Armaco Infralinks Private Limited through its proprietor Shubham Rajeshkumar Jain vs State of Maharashtra through PSO Parseoni Advocate - App — 54/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 11th March 2026.
Cri.M.A.
CNR: MHNG140005102025
e-Filing Number
19-08-2025
Filing Number
476/2025
Filing Date
19-08-2025
Registration No
54/2025
Registration Date
19-08-2025
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Parseoni
Judge
14-Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Parshioni.
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
Police Station
Parshioni
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Armaco Infralinks Private Limited through its proprietor Shubham Rajeshkumar Jain
Adv. Shri. P. S. Sayare
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra through PSO Parseoni Advocate - App (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 14-Civil Judge Jr.Dn J.M.F.C.Parshioni.
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 10-03-2026 | Order |
| 06-03-2026 | Order |
| 26-02-2026 | Order |
| 24-02-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The court allowed Armaco Infralinks' application for custody of the seized tipper vehicle. The Judicial Magistrate held that the applicant, as the registered owner with proper documentation, is entitled to interim custody on supratnama (bond). Despite prosecution concerns about insurance, non-cooperation, and risk of illegal sand transportation, the court found no sufficient grounds for rejection and noted that keeping the vehicle idle at the police station serves no useful purpose. The applicant must execute a ₹5 lakh indemnity bond and cannot alter the vehicle's nature or alienate it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The court allowed Armaco Infralinks' application for custody of the seized tipper vehicle. The Judicial Magistrate held that the applicant, as the registered owner with proper documentation, is entitled to interim custody on supratnama (bond). Despite prosecution concerns about insurance, non-cooperation, and risk of illegal sand transportation, the court found no sufficient grounds for rejection and noted that keeping the vehicle idle at the police station serves no useful purpose. The applicant must execute a ₹5 lakh indemnity bond and cannot alter the vehicle's nature or alienate it. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts