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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 420,408,406,34

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.

28-04-2026

Disposed

17-04-2026

Order

30-03-2026

Hearing

17-03-2026

Hearing

12-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

28-04-2026
Order on Exhibit

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

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

District and Session Court , Ambajogai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case