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
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
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.
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | Order | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order | |
| 07-03-2026 | Order | |
| 27-02-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts