Abhishek Malviya vs Intelligence Officer Central Intelligence Unit — 167/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 12th March 2026.

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHRG170003482026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

25-02-2026

Filing Number

265/2026

Filing Date

25-02-2026

Registration No

167/2026

Registration Date

25-02-2026

Court

District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad

Judge

1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL GRANTED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

Abhishek Malviya

Adv. PURSANI SACHI RAJU

Respondent(s)

Intelligence Officer Central Intelligence Unit

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

12-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Order

06-03-2026

Order

05-03-2026

Arguments

28-02-2026

Reply/Say

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: Abhishek Malviya v. Intelligence Officer CIU (167/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to Abhishek Malviya, a shipping company employee, in a customs fraud case involving mis-declared walnut imports. The court found that while the prosecution alleged a Rs.100+ crore duty evasion scheme using forged bills of lading to falsely claim SAFTA benefits, the applicant—as a logistics employee—lacked ownership, beneficial interest, or decision-making authority over imports. The judge ruled his continued detention unjustified since substantial investigation was complete and imposed conditions including weekly reporting and passport deposit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Abhishek Malviya v. Intelligence Officer CIU (167/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to Abhishek Malviya, a shipping company employee, in a customs fraud case involving mis-declared walnut imports. The court found that while the prosecution alleged a Rs.100+ crore duty evasion scheme using forged bills of lading to falsely claim SAFTA benefits, the applicant—as a logistics employee—lacked ownership, beneficial interest, or decision-making authority over imports. The judge ruled his continued detention unjustified since substantial investigation was complete and imposed conditions including weekly reporting and passport deposit. 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

District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case