Vijay Narayan Salunkhe vs G.R.P. Wardha Advocate - Assistant Public Prosecutor — 624/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Other Misc.Cri.Appln - Other Misc.Criminal Application

CNR: MHWR030018422026

e-Filing Number

02-03-2026

Filing Number

1842/2026

Filing Date

02-Mar-2026

Registration No

624/2026

Registration Date

02-Mar-2026

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate , Wardha

Judge

2-Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 21-May-2026

FIR Details

Police Station

Rly. Police Station Wardha

Year

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

1.Vijay Narayan Salunkhe

Adv. SHINDE ABHAY VINODRAO

Respondent(s)

1.G.R.P. Wardha Advocate - Assistant Public Prosecutor

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
12-Mar-2026

Order on ExhibitView PDF
12-Mar-2026

Order on ExhibitView PDF

The Wardha Judicial Magistrate corrected a clerical error in the previous order dated 12/03/2026 that allowed the release of seized ornaments under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court removed the inadvertently added condition requiring production of a mobile phone and modified condition 3(A) to require only production of the seized ornament as and when directed, keeping all other conditions intact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
12-Mar-2026

Disposed

Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.
11-Mar-2026

Steps

Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.
10-Mar-2026

Reply/Say

Jt. Cjjd JMFC Wardha.
05-Mar-2026

Order on ExhibitView PDF
05-Mar-2026

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
02-Mar-2026

Case filed

Registration No. 624/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Wardha Judicial Magistrate corrected a clerical error in the previous order dated 12/03/2026 that allowed the release of seized ornaments under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court removed the inadvertently added condition requiring production of a mobile phone and modified condition 3(A) to require only production of the seized ornament as and when directed, keeping all other conditions intact. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.