Malati Bhagawat Vyawhare vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Mangrulpir — 28/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 16th March 2026.

Cri.M.A.

CNR: MHWS040003222026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

26-02-2026

Filing Number

322/2026

Filing Date

26-02-2026

Registration No

28/2026

Registration Date

26-02-2026

Court

Civil Court Junior Division, Mangrulpir

Judge

1-Jt Civil JudgeJ.D.Mangrulpir

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

Malati Bhagawat Vyawhare

Adv. PANDEY RAJESHWAR SHIVPRASAD

Respondent(s)

State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Mangrulpir

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Jt Civil JudgeJ.D.Mangrulpir

16-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Order

04-03-2026

Hearing

27-02-2026

Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

Case Summary: Malati Bhagawat Vyawhare v. State of Maharashtra (2026) The court partially allowed the petitioner's application for interim custody of seized gold ornaments. The petitioner claimed ownership of ornaments stolen during a temple visit on 03.01.2026 and provided a purchase receipt as proof. Although the prosecution argued the seized property was important evidence with risk of alteration, the court found the petitioner established a prima facie ownership claim. However, the court granted custody only for ornaments actually seized (two Dorle, two heavy Mani, two thin Mani)—fewer than claimed—due to discrepancies in documentation. Release was conditional on executing an indemnity bond for Rs. 25,000 and strict undertakings prohibiting sale, alteration, or melting until case disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Malati Bhagawat Vyawhare v. State of Maharashtra (2026) The court partially allowed the petitioner's application for interim custody of seized gold ornaments. The petitioner claimed ownership of ornaments stolen during a temple visit on 03.01.2026 and provided a purchase receipt as proof. Although the prosecution argued the seized property was important evidence with risk of alteration, the court found the petitioner established a prima facie ownership claim. However, the court granted custody only for ornaments actually seized (two Dorle, two heavy Mani, two thin Mani)—fewer than claimed—due to discrepancies in documentation. Release was conditional on executing an indemnity bond for Rs. 25,000 and strict undertakings prohibiting sale, alteration, or melting until case disposal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Civil Court Junior Division, Mangrulpir All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case