Sunil Dharma Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra Through PSOPS Khadan, Akola. Tq. Dist. Akola. Advocate - APP — 138/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 07th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHAK010008742026
e-Filing Number
22-02-2026
Filing Number
387/2026
Filing Date
23-02-2026
Registration No
138/2026
Registration Date
23-02-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Akola
Judge
4-District Judge III Akola
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sunil Dharma Jadhav
Adv. Aayush Milind Niwane
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Through PSOPS Khadan, Akola. Tq. Dist. Akola. Advocate - APP (Assistant Public Prosecutor)
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District Judge III Akola
Disposed
Order
Arguments
Arguments
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Order |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 27-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 25-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The District Judge rejected Sunil Dharma Jadhav's pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence that Jadhav was the mastermind of a job-fraud scheme where he and co-accused induced a retired teacher to pay ₹33 lakh by falsely promising government employment through MPSC, ultimately providing forged appointment documents. The court noted that Jadhav's defense that he was merely an intermediary was contradicted by evidence including photographs of him meeting the complainant's son at an ITC hotel and a co-accused's notarized statement acknowledging his role, warranting custodial interrogation for investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The District Judge rejected Sunil Dharma Jadhav's pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence that Jadhav was the mastermind of a job-fraud scheme where he and co-accused induced a retired teacher to pay ₹33 lakh by falsely promising government employment through MPSC, ultimately providing forged appointment documents. The court noted that Jadhav's defense that he was merely an intermediary was contradicted by evidence including photographs of him meeting the complainant's son at an ITC hotel and a co-accused's notarized statement acknowledging his role, warranting custodial interrogation for investigation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts