Sangita Siddharam Koli vs State of Maharashtra - P.I. Rural Police Station, Parli V. Advocate - Phad L.B. — 42/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 28th April 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHBI040000902026
e-Filing Number
26-01-2026
Filing Number
74/2026
Filing Date
28-01-2026
Registration No
42/2026
Registration Date
28-01-2026
Court
District and Session Court , Ambajogai
Judge
2-District Judge-1 Addl.Sessions JudgeAmbajogai.
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
112
Police Station
City Police Station Parli
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sangita Siddharam Koli
Adv. SURYAWANSHI VINOD GAJENDRA
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra - P.I. Rural Police Station, Parli V. Advocate - Phad L.B.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Judge-1 Addl.Sessions JudgeAmbajogai.
Disposed
Order
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-04-2026 | Order |
| 30-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 17-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court rejected Sangita Siddharam Koli's anticipatory bail application in a case involving alleged breach of trust and criminal misconduct under IPC sections 420, 408, and 406, where she and her husband allegedly misappropriated ₹1,08,37,836 from 30-40 clients by depositing their payments into personal accounts instead of business accounts. The judge determined that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate where the misappropriated funds were invested and whether properties were purchased, finding the serious nature of the offense and investigation requirements outweighed bail considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The court rejected Sangita Siddharam Koli's anticipatory bail application in a case involving alleged breach of trust and criminal misconduct under IPC sections 420, 408, and 406, where she and her husband allegedly misappropriated ₹1,08,37,836 from 30-40 clients by depositing their payments into personal accounts instead of business accounts. The judge determined that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate where the misappropriated funds were invested and whether properties were purchased, finding the serious nature of the offense and investigation requirements outweighed bail considerations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts