Sunita laxman Shinde vs Roha police station — 25/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 24th April 2026.

Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application

CNR: MHRG090002802026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

26-02-2026

Filing Number

248/2026

Filing Date

27-02-2026

Registration No

25/2026

Registration Date

27-02-2026

Court

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

Judge

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

Decision Date

24th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

FIR Details

FIR Number

41

Police Station

Roha Police Station-6

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

Sunita laxman Shinde

Adv. Dandekar A. P.

Respondent(s)

Roha police station

Hearing History

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

24-04-2026

Disposed

17-04-2026

Argument on Exh.____Unready

07-04-2026

W.S. and Say

23-03-2026

W.S. and Say

16-03-2026

W.S. and Say

Final Orders / Judgements

24-04-2026
Order on Exhibit

Summary: The court allowed Sunita Shinde's application for release of her seized TVS Scooty, holding that since initial investigation was complete and the Investigating Officer did not require the vehicle for further inquiry, prolonged custody served no purpose. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent that seized property should not be retained longer than absolutely necessary, and released the vehicle to the registered owner subject to conditions including a ₹1,00,000 indemnity bond, undertaking not to sell or transfer without court permission, and production before court as directed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court allowed Sunita Shinde's application for release of her seized TVS Scooty, holding that since initial investigation was complete and the Investigating Officer did not require the vehicle for further inquiry, prolonged custody served no purpose. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent that seized property should not be retained longer than absolutely necessary, and released the vehicle to the registered owner subject to conditions including a ₹1,00,000 indemnity bond, undertaking not to sell or transfer without court permission, and production before court as directed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Judge, J.D. and J.M.F.C., Roha All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case