Gorakha Bind vs Nagothane Police Station — 20/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHRG090002152026

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

192/2026

Filing Date

18-Feb-2026

Registration No

20/2026

Registration Date

18-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

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 28-Apr-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

Nagothane Police Station

Year

0

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Gorakha Bind

    Adv. CHAVAN SUREKHA CHANDRAKANT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Nagothane Police Station

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Summary The court allowed the applicant's application and ordered the Nagothane Police Station to release Rs. 23,019/- that was frozen in an online fraud case to the applicant, upon execution of an indemnity bond. The court reasoned that seized property should not be retained longer than necessary and, since the investigating officer raised no objection and no other claimant appeared, the applicant was entitled to custody while safeguarding prosecution interests through conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

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

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

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

  5. 04-Mar-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

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

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    W.S. and Say

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

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 18-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 20/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The court allowed the applicant's application and ordered the Nagothane Police Station to release Rs. 23,019/- that was frozen in an online fraud case to the applicant, upon execution of an indemnity bond. The court reasoned that seized property should not be retained longer than necessary and, since the investigating officer raised no objection and no other claimant appeared, the applicant was entitled to custody while safeguarding prosecution interests through conditions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case