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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

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.

11-03-2026

Disposed

10-03-2026

Order

06-03-2026

Order

26-02-2026

Order

24-02-2026

Order

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division , Parseoni All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case