Abhishek Pramod Bambal vs State of Maharashtra — 27/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 16th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A.

CNR: MHNG180004992026

e-Filing Number

07-03-2026

Filing Number

460/2026

Filing Date

07-Mar-2026

Registration No

27/2026

Registration Date

07-Mar-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division , Kalmeshwar

Judge

1-CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. JMFC Kalmeshwar

Decision Date

16-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Last updated 11-May-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

Kalmeshwar

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Abhishek Pramod Bambal

    Adv. Sneha Ramrao Gondane

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  3. 16-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court allowed Abhishek's application under Section 503 BNSS 2023 to recover his seized VIVO Y 27 mobile phone, finding he established ownership through bill documentation and the police failed to demonstrate evidentiary value. The mobile was returned to him upon executing a Rs. 10,000 indemnity bond with conditions that he preserve it, not use it for crime, and produce it for trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. JMFC Kalmeshwar

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. JMFC Kalmeshwar

  8. 10-Mar-2026

    Reply/Say

    CIVIL Judge Jr.dn. JMFC Kalmeshwar

  9. 07-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

  10. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 07-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 27/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed Abhishek's application under Section 503 BNSS 2023 to recover his seized VIVO Y 27 mobile phone, finding he established ownership through bill documentation and the police failed to demonstrate evidentiary value. The mobile was returned to him upon executing a Rs. 10,000 indemnity bond with conditions that he preserve it, not use it for crime, and produce it for trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case