Amar Balvant Sutar vs State of Maharashtra — 150/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 12th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHKO010006952026
e-Filing Number
16-02-2026
Filing Number
278/2026
Filing Date
16-Feb-2026
Registration No
150/2026
Registration Date
16-Feb-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur
Judge
7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur
Decision Date
12-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
Last updated 10-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
785
Police Station
Police Station Juna Rajwada
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Amar Balvant Sutar
Adv. R. V. Patil
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Maharashtra
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-Mar-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
Summary The Sessions Court, Kolhapur rejected Amar Balwant Sutar's anticipatory bail application in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant allegedly defrauded the complainant of ₹8,54,200 by falsely promising employment as a peon and driver at the District Court, eventually providing a fake appointment letter. The court found the offence grave, determined that custodial interrogation was necessary for investigation, and held this non-bailable offence unsuitable for anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
12-Mar-2026
Disposed
District Judge-2 Kolhapur
-
11-Mar-2026
Order
District Judge-2 Kolhapur
-
10-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge-2 Kolhapur
-
05-Mar-2026
Hearing
District Judge-2 Kolhapur
-
27-Feb-2026
Reply/Say
District Judge-2 Kolhapur
-
21-Feb-2026
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
District Judge-2 Kolhapur
-
16-Feb-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 150/2026
Summary The Sessions Court, Kolhapur rejected Amar Balwant Sutar's anticipatory bail application in a case involving allegations of cheating and forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant allegedly defrauded the complainant of ₹8,54,200 by falsely promising employment as a peon and driver at the District Court, eventually providing a fake appointment letter. The court found the offence grave, determined that custodial interrogation was necessary for investigation, and held this non-bailable offence unsuitable for anticipatory bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts