Rustum Balaji Gharjale vs Maharashtra State Through Uran police station — 68/2025

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 16th March 2026.

Other Misc.Cri.Appln - Other Misc.Criminal Application

CNR: MHRG140025992025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

10-11-2025

Filing Number

2167/2025

Filing Date

12-11-2025

Registration No

68/2025

Registration Date

12-11-2025

Court

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

Judge

4-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

Rustum Balaji Gharjale

Adv. Kailas Madhukar Mhatre

Respondent(s)

Maharashtra State Through Uran police station

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Uran.

16-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Order

10-03-2026

Order

07-03-2026

Order

27-02-2026

Order

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary The court granted interim custody of two seized vehicles to applicant Rustum Balaji Gharjale, relying on the Supreme Court's Sunderbhai Desai guidelines that vehicles should not deteriorate at police stations. While acknowledging prosecution concerns about misuse for Essential Commodities Act violations, the court found stringent conditions—including a ₹10,55,000 indemnity bond, prohibition on altering vehicle identity, and mandatory production on demand—adequately safeguard state interests while preventing irreparable financial loss to the registered owner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The court granted interim custody of two seized vehicles to applicant Rustum Balaji Gharjale, relying on the Supreme Court's Sunderbhai Desai guidelines that vehicles should not deteriorate at police stations. While acknowledging prosecution concerns about misuse for Essential Commodities Act violations, the court found stringent conditions—including a ₹10,55,000 indemnity bond, prohibition on altering vehicle identity, and mandatory production on demand—adequately safeguard state interests while preventing irreparable financial loss to the registered owner. 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., Uran All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case