Sagar Bahadur Bohara vs The State Of Maharashtra-Umbraj Police Station Advocate - APP — 53/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 24th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHST070011252026
e-Filing Number
27-02-2026
Filing Number
1021/2026
Filing Date
02-03-2026
Registration No
53/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Karad
Judge
3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.Karad.
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sagar Bahadur Bohara
Adv. JAGDALE SANKET ANKUSHRAO
Respondent(s)
The State Of Maharashtra-Umbraj Police Station Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 3-3rd Jt. Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C.Karad.
Disposed
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 20-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 16-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 12-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 06-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court allowed the application of Sagar Bahadur Bohara for interim custody of his seized OPPO A17 mobile phone, finding that he established ownership through FIR copy, mobile bill, and Aadhar card, and that mere police speculation about destruction was insufficient grounds for denial. The court imposed conditions including a Rs. 12,500 indemnity bond, prohibition on sale/transfer, mandatory production before court, preservation of the device, and photographic documentation before custody transfer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the application of Sagar Bahadur Bohara for interim custody of his seized OPPO A17 mobile phone, finding that he established ownership through FIR copy, mobile bill, and Aadhar card, and that mere police speculation about destruction was insufficient grounds for denial. The court imposed conditions including a Rs. 12,500 indemnity bond, prohibition on sale/transfer, mandatory production before court, preservation of the device, and photographic documentation before custody transfer. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts