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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

16-02-2026

Filing Number

278/2026

Filing Date

16-02-2026

Registration No

150/2026

Registration Date

16-02-2026

Court

District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur

Judge

7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--BAIL REFUSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

785

Police Station

Police Station Juna Rajwada

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 336(3),318(2),316(4),304(2)

Petitioner(s)

Amar Balvant Sutar

Adv. R. V. Patil

Respondent(s)

State of Maharashtra

Hearing History

Judge: 7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur

12-03-2026

Disposed

11-03-2026

Order

10-03-2026

Hearing

05-03-2026

Hearing

27-02-2026

Reply/Say

Final Orders / Judgements

12-03-2026
Order on Exhibit

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case