SHAYAR KUMAR ETC vs State — 43/2026
Case under Essential Commodities Act Section 6. Disposed: Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing on 12th March 2026.
Cr. Appeal
CNR: RJSG010002592026
Filing Number
208/2026
Filing Date
13-Feb-2026
Registration No
43/2026
Registration Date
18-Feb-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Shri Ganganagar District HQ
Judge
2-ADJ I
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed / Granted after Full Trial / Hearing
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SHAYAR KUMAR ETC
Adv. Anand Kumar Vyas
-
2.MUNNA
-
3.VINOD KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.State
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: 43/2026 Court Decision: The High Court (District & Sessions Division, Sriganganagar) upheld a lower court order from February 2, 2026, which seized 2,717.750 liters of diesel and a vehicle (Registration No. RJ13 GC 4773) from petitioner Shayar Kumar. The court confirmed the confiscation of the diesel under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, while ordering petitioner to provide a ₹3 lakh surety bond to secure the vehicle's release pending further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
ADJ I
-
09-Mar-2026
Compliance
ADJ I
-
06-Mar-2026
Compliance
ADJ I
-
25-Feb-2026
Compliance
ADJ I
-
20-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 43/2026
Case Summary: 43/2026 Court Decision: The High Court (District & Sessions Division, Sriganganagar) upheld a lower court order from February 2, 2026, which seized 2,717.750 liters of diesel and a vehicle (Registration No. RJ13 GC 4773) from petitioner Shayar Kumar. The court confirmed the confiscation of the diesel under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005, while ordering petitioner to provide a ₹3 lakh surety bond to secure the vehicle's release pending further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts