Javed Rafik Ansari vs State of Maharashtra Th. Tulinj Police Station and 1 Anr. — 5/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 408. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 01st April 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHTH010000972026
e-Filing Number
03-01-2026
Filing Number
58/2026
Filing Date
05-01-2026
Registration No
5/2026
Registration Date
05-01-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Thane
Judge
1-Principal District and Sessions Judge Thane
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
380
Police Station
Tulinj Police Station
Year
2015
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Javed Rafik Ansari
Adv. Tapase Deepak Deoram
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Th. Tulinj Police Station and 1 Anr.
Mahendra Singh
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District and Sessions Judge Thane
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Steps
Awaiting Notice
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 06-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 17-02-2026 | Steps |
| 28-01-2026 | Awaiting Notice |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Cri.M.A.No.5/2026 The Sessions Judge at Thane rejected petitioner Javed Rafik Ansari's application seeking transfer of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.206/2025 to the court handling his related MCOCA case. Ansari, a witness in the MCOCA matter, sought the transfer to facilitate witness protection proceedings. The court found no purpose would be served by the transfer, noting that a dedicated committee handles witness protection applications and courts cannot independently grant such protection by order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cri.M.A.No.5/2026 The Sessions Judge at Thane rejected petitioner Javed Rafik Ansari's application seeking transfer of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.206/2025 to the court handling his related MCOCA case. Ansari, a witness in the MCOCA matter, sought the transfer to facilitate witness protection proceedings. The court found no purpose would be served by the transfer, noting that a dedicated committee handles witness protection applications and courts cannot independently grant such protection by order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts