SAURABH RAVINDRA MEHENDALE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR — ABA/29/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: --Rejected on 15th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010005052026

Filing Number

ABA/181/2026

Filing Date

06-Jan-2026

Registration No

ABA/29/2026

Registration Date

06-Jan-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha

Bench Type

Single

Category

BAIL ( 51 )

Sub-Category

Anticipatory ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

Criminal

Decision Date

15-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

--Rejected

Last updated 09-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),316(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SAURABH RAVINDRA MEHENDALE

    Adv. ADV PARMESHWAR A BHISE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

  2. 2.THE SR POLICE INSP.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. LaddhaView PDF

    SUMMARY The Bombay High Court rejected three anticipatory bail applications filed by Sangita Ravindra Mehendale, Saurabh Ravindra Mehendale, and Ravindra Yashwant Mehendale in connection with CR No.177/2025 for offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court found prima facie evidence that the applicants fraudulently induced the informant to part with Rs.57,66,200 as margin money for securing a Rs.10 crore loan, subsequently issued dishonoured cheques, and exhibited dishonest intention from inception. The court determined that custodial interrogation was essential for investigating the fraud, uncovering multiple victims, and tracing the money trail, making anticipatory bail inappropriate given the gravity and nature of allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Apr-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. Laddha

  4. 09-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice R. N. LaddhaView PDF

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    For Admission /Hearing

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. Borkar

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice N. R. BorkarView PDF

  7. 13-Mar-2026

    For Admission (Anticipatory Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  8. 24-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  9. 24-Feb-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  10. 12-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  11. 12-Feb-2026

    For Admission (Anticipatory Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  12. 05-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  13. 05-Feb-2026

    For Admission (Anticipatory Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  14. 30-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  15. 30-Jan-2026

    For Admission (Anticipatory Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  16. 19-Jan-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  17. 17-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  18. 17-Jan-2026

    For Admission (Anticipatory Bail Applications)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  19. 13-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  20. 13-Jan-2026

    At 3.00 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar

  21. 07-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. JamdarView PDF

  22. 07-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 06-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. ABA/29/2026

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The Bombay High Court rejected three anticipatory bail applications filed by Sangita Ravindra Mehendale, Saurabh Ravindra Mehendale, and Ravindra Yashwant Mehendale in connection with CR No.177/2025 for offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court found prima facie evidence that the applicants fraudulently induced the informant to part with Rs.57,66,200 as margin money for securing a Rs.10 crore loan, subsequently issued dishonoured cheques, and exhibited dishonest intention from inception. The court determined that custodial interrogation was essential for investigating the fraud, uncovering multiple victims, and tracing the money trail, making anticipatory bail inappropriate given the gravity and nature of allegations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case