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
e-Filing Number
26-02-2026
Filing Number
322/2026
Filing Date
26-Feb-2026
Registration No
28/2026
Registration Date
26-Feb-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division, Mangrulpir
Judge
1-Jt Civil JudgeJ.D.Mangrulpir
Decision Date
16-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Malati Bhagawat Vyawhare
Adv. PANDEY RAJESHWAR SHIVPRASAD
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra through Police Station Officer Mangrulpir
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
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.
-
16-Mar-2026
Disposed
Jt Civil JudgeJ.D.Mangrulpir
-
12-Mar-2026
Order
Jt Civil JudgeJ.D.Mangrulpir
-
04-Mar-2026
Hearing
Jt Civil JudgeJ.D.Mangrulpir
-
27-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
26-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 28/2026
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.
Explore other courts