Rajesh Digambar Bayas vs MAHARASHTRA State Through Police Inspector Cyber Cell police station Yavatmal and one — 4/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 18th March 2026.
Other Misc.Cri.Appln - Other Misc.Criminal Application
CNR: MHYA170000242026
e-Filing Number
05-01-2026
Filing Number
22/2026
Filing Date
08-01-2026
Registration No
4/2026
Registration Date
08-01-2026
Court
Civil Judge Junior Division Kalamb
Judge
1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Kalamb
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE
FIR Details
FIR Number
24
Police Station
Poliice Station Kalamb
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rajesh Digambar Bayas
Adv. TELANGE DHAMMARATNA GOVINDRAO
Respondent(s)
MAHARASHTRA State Through Police Inspector Cyber Cell police station Yavatmal and one
Thanedar saheb police station Kalamb TQ Kalamb Dist Yavatmal
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Kalamb
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court allowed the applicant's application under Section 503 of BNNS and ordered the return of Rs. 1,23,180/- that was seized by cyber police after the applicant's mobile was hacked and fraudulent UPI transactions were made. The court found no reason to keep the amount on hold since the investigation was nearing completion and no other party had claimed the funds, requiring the applicant to execute an indemnity bond before receiving the refund. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court allowed the applicant's application under Section 503 of BNNS and ordered the return of Rs. 1,23,180/- that was seized by cyber police after the applicant's mobile was hacked and fraudulent UPI transactions were made. The court found no reason to keep the amount on hold since the investigation was nearing completion and no other party had claimed the funds, requiring the applicant to execute an indemnity bond before receiving the refund. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts