Rakesh Babaram Dhebe vs The State of Maharashtra Thorugh khed Police Station Advocate - Assistant Public Prosecutor — 1/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 10th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHRT050000052026
e-Filing Number
01-01-2026
Filing Number
5/2026
Filing Date
02-01-2026
Registration No
1/2026
Registration Date
02-01-2026
Court
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khed
Judge
2-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn J.M.F.C. Khed
Decision Date
10th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rakesh Babaram Dhebe
Adv. Farman Metkar
Respondent(s)
The State of Maharashtra Thorugh khed Police Station Advocate - Assistant Public Prosecutor
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Joint Civil Judge Jr. Dn J.M.F.C. Khed
Disposed
Order on Exh
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 04-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 17-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 09-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court granted the petitioner's application for interim custody of four seized bulls under Section 503 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2023. The investigating officer's testimony confirmed the bulls belonged to the petitioner, and the court found no evidence linking him to the criminal case, determining the animals would be safer with the petitioner than with the respondent animal shelter (Caretaker No. 2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court granted the petitioner's application for interim custody of four seized bulls under Section 503 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 2023. The investigating officer's testimony confirmed the bulls belonged to the petitioner, and the court found no evidence linking him to the criminal case, determining the animals would be safer with the petitioner than with the respondent animal shelter (Caretaker No. 2). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts