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
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
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
Disposed
Order
Order
Arguments
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Order |
| 06-03-2026 | Order |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 28-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts