Devendra Dilipkumar Katiyara vs Maharashtra Government — 21/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

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

CNR: MHYA170003652026

e-Filing Number

06-05-2026

Filing Number

315/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

21/2026

Registration Date

06-May-2026

Court

Civil Judge Junior Division Kalamb

Judge

1-Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Kalamb

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED OTHERWISE

Last updated 17-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 503

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Devendra Dilipkumar Katiyara

    Adv. Nilesh Suhas Gonde

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Maharashtra Government

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Order on Exhibit

    The court allowed Devendra Dilipkumar Katiyara's application for interim custody of his seized Hyundai Exter vehicle and mobile phones, recognizing him as the registered owner. The court imposed strict conditions including an Rs. 8,00,000 indemnity bond, prohibition on alienating or altering the property, and requirement to produce items when demanded. The court balanced the prosecution's concerns about misuse with the practical need to prevent property deterioration at the police station. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Kalamb

  4. 18-May-2026

    Reply/Say

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Kalamb

  5. 08-May-2026

    Reply/Say

    Civil Judge Jr.Dn. and J.m.f.c., Kalamb

  6. 06-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 21/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed Devendra Dilipkumar Katiyara's application for interim custody of his seized Hyundai Exter vehicle and mobile phones, recognizing him as the registered owner. The court imposed strict conditions including an Rs. 8,00,000 indemnity bond, prohibition on alienating or altering the property, and requirement to produce items when demanded. The court balanced the prosecution's concerns about misuse with the practical need to prevent property deterioration at the police station. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case