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
16-02-2026
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
Petitioner(s)
Amar Balvant Sutar
Adv. R. V. Patil
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur
Disposed
Order
Hearing
Hearing
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | Order | |
| 10-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 05-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 27-02-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts