Raju Duryodhan Gudodagi vs State of Maharashtra — 55/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 20th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHSO200003592026
e-Filing Number
19-02-2026
Filing Number
276/2026
Filing Date
23-02-2026
Registration No
55/2026
Registration Date
23-02-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Sangola
Judge
6-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
FIR Number
117
Police Station
Sangola Police Station.
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Raju Duryodhan Gudodagi
Adv. Torane Tayappa Sanjay
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 6-C.J.J.D. J.M.F.C.Sangola.
Disposed
Arguments
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 11-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 05-03-2026 | Order |
| 02-03-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: Case 55/2026 — Raju Duryodhan Gudodagi v. State of Maharashtra The court allowed the applicant's petition to recover his seized Bolero pickup vehicle, used in illegal animal transportation, on strict conditions. The vehicle was released on an indemnity bond of ₹5,00,000 and bank guarantee of equal amount, with the applicant required to maintain the vehicle's condition, pay ₹200/day for animal care costs, and produce it as needed for investigation. The court balanced the owner's rights against evidence preservation and animal welfare obligations under animal protection laws. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: Case 55/2026 — Raju Duryodhan Gudodagi v. State of Maharashtra The court allowed the applicant's petition to recover his seized Bolero pickup vehicle, used in illegal animal transportation, on strict conditions. The vehicle was released on an indemnity bond of ₹5,00,000 and bank guarantee of equal amount, with the applicant required to maintain the vehicle's condition, pay ₹200/day for animal care costs, and produce it as needed for investigation. The court balanced the owner's rights against evidence preservation and animal welfare obligations under animal protection laws. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts