Yugandhar Manoj Karlekar vs St. of Mah. Thr. P.S.Wardha Advocate - App D. P. Kothari — 291/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 16th May 2026.
Other Misc.Cri.Appln - Other Misc.Criminal Application
CNR: MHWR030009112026
e-Filing Number
02-02-2026
Filing Number
911/2026
Filing Date
03-02-2026
Registration No
291/2026
Registration Date
03-02-2026
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate , Wardha
Judge
3-2ND JT. CJJD JMFC WARDHA.
Decision Date
16th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
FIR Number
1870
Police Station
Police Station Wardha
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Yugandhar Manoj Karlekar
Adv. MOON BHARAT PUNDLIKRAO
Respondent(s)
St. of Mah. Thr. P.S.Wardha Advocate - App (Assistant Public Prosecutor) D. P. Kothari
Hearing History
Judge: 3-2ND JT. CJJD JMFC WARDHA.
Disposed
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-05-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 11-05-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 05-05-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 28-04-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the applicant Yugandhar Karlekar's supratnama application and ordered release of his seized Honda Dream Yuga motorcycle, as the applicant established ownership through his deceased father's registration certificate and other documents, with both the investigating officer and prosecutor not objecting. The court imposed conditions including execution of a supurtnama bond with Rs. 50,000 forfeiture clause, submission of vehicle photographs, non-transfer of the vehicle until trial conclusion, and production on court directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court allowed the applicant Yugandhar Karlekar's supratnama application and ordered release of his seized Honda Dream Yuga motorcycle, as the applicant established ownership through his deceased father's registration certificate and other documents, with both the investigating officer and prosecutor not objecting. The court imposed conditions including execution of a supurtnama bond with Rs. 50,000 forfeiture clause, submission of vehicle photographs, non-transfer of the vehicle until trial conclusion, and production on court directions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts