PRIYANKA DUBEY vs State Gov. — 59/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 19th March 2026.

Case disposed

Criminal Revision

CNR: UPGK010015612026

Filing Number

1435/2026

Filing Date

21-Feb-2026

Registration No

59/2026

Registration Date

21-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

1-District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

19-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 438,440

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRIYANKA DUBEY

    Adv. SAURABH TRIPATHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Gov.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 19-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    The court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the lower court's order dated 10.02.2026 that had rejected the petitioner Priyanka Dube's plea for release of her stolen scooter (UP0-32-E.H.-4814). The high court found that the trial court failed to consider relevant legal precedents and facts, particularly that the registered owner has the right to recover seized vehicles upon providing proper security and undertaking, and that prolonged detention causes depreciation and loss of value to the vehicle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District and Sessions Judge

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Order/Disposal

    District and Sessions Judge

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  6. 11-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  7. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    District and Sessions Judge

  8. 21-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 21-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 59/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the lower court's order dated 10.02.2026 that had rejected the petitioner Priyanka Dube's plea for release of her stolen scooter (UP0-32-E.H.-4814). The high court found that the trial court failed to consider relevant legal precedents and facts, particularly that the registered owner has the right to recover seized vehicles upon providing proper security and undertaking, and that prolonged detention causes depreciation and loss of value to the vehicle. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case