SACHIN VIKRAMRAO GHAYAL vs State of Maharashtra — 52/2026
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 318(4)316(2)336(2)336(3)338340. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 01st April 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHAU170002172026
e-Filing Number
12-03-2026
Filing Number
117/2026
Filing Date
12-03-2026
Registration No
52/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
Paithan, Dist and Sessions Court
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
63
Police Station
MIDC PAITHAN
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SACHIN VIKRAMRAO GHAYAL
Adv. Babar K.D.
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-03-2026 | Order |
| 28-03-2026 | Order |
| 27-03-2026 | Order |
| 25-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Sachin Vikramrao Ghayal v. State of Maharashtra (52/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge at Paithan rejected Sachin Ghayal's anticipatory bail application in a case involving alleged misappropriation of ₹16 crore from a cooperative sugar factory. The court found prima facie evidence that Ghayal, as Managing Director of Sachin Ghayal Sugar Private Ltd., diverted loan funds meant for factory modernization into land purchases under a company represented by his wife, rather than using them for the stated purpose, constituting economic offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Sachin Vikramrao Ghayal v. State of Maharashtra (52/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge at Paithan rejected Sachin Ghayal's anticipatory bail application in a case involving alleged misappropriation of ₹16 crore from a cooperative sugar factory. The court found prima facie evidence that Ghayal, as Managing Director of Sachin Ghayal Sugar Private Ltd., diverted loan funds meant for factory modernization into land purchases under a company represented by his wife, rather than using them for the stated purpose, constituting economic offences. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts