Ajrodin Mohammad Sadiq Sheikh vs Police Inspector/Government of Maharashtra — 36/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 20th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHNS140004262026
e-Filing Number
27-02-2026
Filing Number
370/2026
Filing Date
04-03-2026
Registration No
36/2026
Registration Date
04-03-2026
Court
Civil and Criminal Court ,Dindori
Judge
2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ajrodin Mohammad Sadiq Sheikh
Adv. PRAMOD BHALERAO
Respondent(s)
Police Inspector/Government of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 2-CIVIL JUDGE J.D. AND JMFC DINDORI
Disposed
Unready Board
Unready Board
Unready Board
Unready Board
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Unready Board | |
| 17-03-2026 | Unready Board | |
| 12-03-2026 | Unready Board | |
| 11-03-2026 | Unready Board |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court granted the petitioner's application for interim custody of a Samsung Galaxy A-35 mobile phone and ₹36,000 in seized cash from criminal case FIR 50/2026 at Dindori Police Station. The petitioner established ownership through documentary evidence and affidavits, while the court found no other claimant to the seized property. The court ordered the petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond of ₹1,00,000 and imposed conditions that the property cannot be sold, pledged, or altered without court permission until the case concludes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court granted the petitioner's application for interim custody of a Samsung Galaxy A-35 mobile phone and ₹36,000 in seized cash from criminal case FIR 50/2026 at Dindori Police Station. The petitioner established ownership through documentary evidence and affidavits, while the court found no other claimant to the seized property. The court ordered the petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond of ₹1,00,000 and imposed conditions that the property cannot be sold, pledged, or altered without court permission until the case concludes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts