Vasundhara Developers Through Pratik Nitin Amburle vs Government Through Murud Police Station — 20/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 12th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHRG010002192026
e-Filing Number
23-02-2026
Filing Number
76/2026
Filing Date
27-02-2026
Registration No
20/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
District and Session Court Raigad
Judge
17-DISTRICT JUDGE-2 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
FIR Number
7
Police Station
Murud Police station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vasundhara Developers Through Pratik Nitin Amburle
Adv. THAKUR PRAVIN MADHUKAR
Respondent(s)
Government Through Murud Police Station
Hearing History
Judge: 17-DISTRICT JUDGE-2 AND ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
Disposed
Order on Exh
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-03-2026 | Order on Exh |
| 28-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Vasundhara Developers v. State (Cri.M.A. 20/2026) The court allowed the applicant's vehicle return application, releasing a seized Hyundai excavator machine to its registered owner Pratik Nitin Amburle on interim basis. The court found that the two-month investigation was substantially complete and that stringent conditions could address police concerns about misuse or sale, while prolonged detention would unfairly depreciate the equipment and harm the owner's livelihood. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Vasundhara Developers v. State (Cri.M.A. 20/2026) The court allowed the applicant's vehicle return application, releasing a seized Hyundai excavator machine to its registered owner Pratik Nitin Amburle on interim basis. The court found that the two-month investigation was substantially complete and that stringent conditions could address police concerns about misuse or sale, while prolonged detention would unfairly depreciate the equipment and harm the owner's livelihood. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts