Siddharth Vijay Shetye vs State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector Ratnagiri City Police Station etc.3 Advocate - Phansekar Aniruddha Avinash — 11/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 16th April 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHRT010001392026
e-Filing Number
06-03-2026
Filing Number
51/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
11/2026
Registration Date
09-03-2026
Court
District and session court , Ratnagiri
Judge
3-District Judge-1 and Addl.Session Judge Ratnagiri
Decision Date
16th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
FIR Number
371
Police Station
Ratnagiri City Police Station Ratnagiri.
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Siddharth Vijay Shetye
Adv. Pradeep Pandharinath Nene
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector Ratnagiri City Police Station etc.3 Advocate - Phansekar Aniruddha Avinash
Sharad Raghunath Jadhav
Satej Shantaram Ghawali
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge-1 and Addl.Session Judge Ratnagiri
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 30-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the application and directed the return of a seized Vivo Y72 mobile phone and SIM cards to applicant Satej Shantaram Ghawali, finding him to be the rightful owner, despite the investigation being pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The phone was ordered released upon execution of a ₹20,000 bond with conditions that the applicant must not dispose of or transfer the device without court permission and must produce it for investigative purposes as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the application and directed the return of a seized Vivo Y72 mobile phone and SIM cards to applicant Satej Shantaram Ghawali, finding him to be the rightful owner, despite the investigation being pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The phone was ordered released upon execution of a ₹20,000 bond with conditions that the applicant must not dispose of or transfer the device without court permission and must produce it for investigative purposes as required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts