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
16-02-2026
Registration No
14/2026
Registration Date
16-02-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Akot
Judge
1-District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sumit Nareshappa Gambhire
Adv. Rathi Nilesh Ramanlal
Saurabh Nareshappa Gambhire
Adv. Rathi Nilesh Ramanlal
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Through P. S. Telhara Advocate - A.G.P. /A.P.P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 A.S.J. Akot
Disposed
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Hearing
Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 06-03-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
| 27-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
| 25-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 23-02-2026 | Say / Hearing on Exh____Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts