VIKRAM KUMAR MAHESHWARI vs STATE Advocate - PP DJ — 45/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438. Disposed: Contested--Allowed otherwise on 30th April 2026.
Cr. Revision
CNR: RJBM010015732025
Filing Number
1226/2025
Filing Date
11-09-2025
Registration No
45/2025
Registration Date
11-09-2025
Court
DJ ADJ-Barmer District HQ
Judge
3-District Judge
Decision Date
30th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed otherwise
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VIKRAM KUMAR MAHESHWARI
Adv. RAMESH SOLANKI
Respondent(s)
STATE Advocate - PP (Public Prosecutor) DJ
STUTI ENTERPRISES JARIYE RAJNI CHANNALAL
Hearing History
Judge: 3-District Judge
Final arguments
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 30-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 30-03-2026 | Final arguments |
| 17-03-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of ₹7,22,679 to petitioner Vikram Kumar from respondent Rajni Chunnalal's frozen bank account, finding that the funds were legitimately obtained through export incentive credits under the government's export promotion scheme and should not have been frozen. The court noted that the respondent (Rajni) had given consent to release the funds, and since other beneficiaries had already received their portions in similar circumstances, denying the petitioner's claim would be inequitable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court allowed the petition and ordered the release of ₹7,22,679 to petitioner Vikram Kumar from respondent Rajni Chunnalal's frozen bank account, finding that the funds were legitimately obtained through export incentive credits under the government's export promotion scheme and should not have been frozen. The court noted that the respondent (Rajni) had given consent to release the funds, and since other beneficiaries had already received their portions in similar circumstances, denying the petitioner's claim would be inequitable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts