Sumit Nareshappa Gambhire vs State of Maharashtra Through P. S. Telhara Advocate - A.G.P. /A.P.P — 14/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Uncontested--REJECTED on 07th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln.
CNR: MHAK050000852026
e-Filing Number
13-02-2026
Filing Number
50/2026
Filing Date
16-Feb-2026
Registration No
14/2026
Registration Date
16-Feb-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Akot
Judge
1-District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
Decision Date
07-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Last updated 25-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Sumit Nareshappa Gambhire
Adv. Rathi Nilesh Ramanlal
-
2.Saurabh Nareshappa Gambhire
Adv. Rathi Nilesh Ramanlal
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra Through P. S. Telhara Advocate - A.G.P. /A.P.P
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
07-Mar-2026
Order on Exhibit
Summary The court rejected the bail application of Sumit Nareshappa Gambhire and another accused in an e-bike fraud case. The applicants floated a scheme collecting Rs. 12,000 deposits from customers promising e-bikes, but allegedly forged receipts and failed to deliver vehicles. The court found custodial interrogation necessary to investigate the scheme's details, trace money flow, and recover documents, rejecting arguments that the matter was civil in nature or that prior statements rendered interrogation unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
-
06-Mar-2026
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
-
27-Feb-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
-
25-Feb-2026
Hearing
District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
-
23-Feb-2026
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
-
21-Feb-2026
Notice_Unready
District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
-
17-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 14/2026
Summary The court rejected the bail application of Sumit Nareshappa Gambhire and another accused in an e-bike fraud case. The applicants floated a scheme collecting Rs. 12,000 deposits from customers promising e-bikes, but allegedly forged receipts and failed to deliver vehicles. The court found custodial interrogation necessary to investigate the scheme's details, trace money flow, and recover documents, rejecting arguments that the matter was civil in nature or that prior statements rendered interrogation unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts