Shalaka Sadashiv Gaonkar vs State of Maharashtra,Inspector, State Excise, — 52/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 11th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHSI060002552026
e-Filing Number
25-02-2026
Filing Number
197/2026
Filing Date
04-Mar-2026
Registration No
52/2026
Registration Date
04-Mar-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Sawantwadi
Judge
1-Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sawantwadi
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Last updated 20-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
07
Police Station
Police Station Sawantwadi.
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Shalaka Sadashiv Gaonkar
Adv. CHAVAN PARSHURAM BABURAO
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra,Inspector, State Excise,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary: The court allowed Shalaka's application for interim custody of a seized Hyundai Santro car under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, finding her to be the legitimate owner with valid documentation. The vehicle is released on an Rs. 8,00,000 indemnity bond with conditions including cooperation with investigation, prohibition on selling or altering the vehicle, and production of photographs—citing Supreme Court precedent that seized properties should not remain idle at police facilities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sawantwadi
-
06-Mar-2026
Unready Board
Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Sawantwadi
-
04-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 52/2026
Summary: The court allowed Shalaka's application for interim custody of a seized Hyundai Santro car under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, finding her to be the legitimate owner with valid documentation. The vehicle is released on an Rs. 8,00,000 indemnity bond with conditions including cooperation with investigation, prohibition on selling or altering the vehicle, and production of photographs—citing Supreme Court precedent that seized properties should not remain idle at police facilities. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts