Mahendra Balu Magar vs R P F ROHA — 19/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHRG090002042026

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

182/2026

Filing Date

17-Feb-2026

Registration No

19/2026

Registration Date

17-Feb-2026

Court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Roha

Judge

1-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

96

Police Station

Roha Police Station-6

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mahendra Balu Magar

    Adv. VARMA DINESH MANNULAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.R P F ROHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary: The court allowed the applicant's petition to release his seized Tata Tempo vehicle, finding that the initial investigation was completed and the Investigating Officer did not require the vehicle for further investigation or evidence. Applying the Supreme Court principle that seized property must not be retained longer than absolutely necessary, the court ordered release of the vehicle subject to conditions including a Rs. 5,00,000 indemnity bond, prohibition on sale/transfer without court permission, and the applicant's obligation to produce the vehicle when directed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

  4. 04-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

  5. 24-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C Roha

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 17-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 19/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court allowed the applicant's petition to release his seized Tata Tempo vehicle, finding that the initial investigation was completed and the Investigating Officer did not require the vehicle for further investigation or evidence. Applying the Supreme Court principle that seized property must not be retained longer than absolutely necessary, the court ordered release of the vehicle subject to conditions including a Rs. 5,00,000 indemnity bond, prohibition on sale/transfer without court permission, and the applicant's obligation to produce the vehicle when directed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case