Kishor Shankar Lokade vs State Through Police Station Officer Risod — 41/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 497,503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 18th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHWS080004182026
e-Filing Number
28-02-2026
Filing Number
325/2026
Filing Date
04-03-2026
Registration No
41/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Risod
Judge
2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Risod.
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
FIR Details
Police Station
P.S. Risod
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kishor Shankar Lokade
Adv. IRATKAR SAGAR PUNDLIK
Respondent(s)
State Through Police Station Officer Risod
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.Civil Judge Jr.Dn. J.M.F.C.Risod.
Disposed
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 10-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 07-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Cri.M.A. No. 41/2026 The court allowed Kishor Shankar Lokade's application under BNSS sections 497 and 503 to recover his seized VIVO V60 mobile phone, finding he established ownership through FIR, Aadhar card, and mobile bill documents. The court reasoned that since investigation was complete, the IO did not dispute ownership, and retaining the phone risked deterioration, returning it served no investigative purpose. The phone was ordered released upon execution of an indemnity bond of Rs. 38,999, with conditions that the applicant not sell/transfer it without court permission, maintain it properly, and produce it when directed. The IO was directed to photograph the device and prepare a panchnama before release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Cri.M.A. No. 41/2026 The court allowed Kishor Shankar Lokade's application under BNSS sections 497 and 503 to recover his seized VIVO V60 mobile phone, finding he established ownership through FIR, Aadhar card, and mobile bill documents. The court reasoned that since investigation was complete, the IO did not dispute ownership, and retaining the phone risked deterioration, returning it served no investigative purpose. The phone was ordered released upon execution of an indemnity bond of Rs. 38,999, with conditions that the applicant not sell/transfer it without court permission, maintain it properly, and produce it when directed. The IO was directed to photograph the device and prepare a panchnama before release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts