Swati Sagar Tambekar vs State Of Maharashtra — 217/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL GRANTED on 12th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHKO010009612026
e-Filing Number
06-03-2026
Filing Number
408/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
217/2026
Registration Date
07-03-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court , Kolhapur
Judge
7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL GRANTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
59
Police Station
Police Station Gandhinagar
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Swati Sagar Tambekar
Adv. Raju Vallappa Mhankale
Sagar Balwant Tambekar
Adv. Raju Vallappa Mhankale
Respondent(s)
State Of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 7-District Judge-2 Kolhapur
Disposed
Order
Order
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 11-03-2026 | Order | |
| 10-03-2026 | Order | |
| 07-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Kolhapur Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to Swati Sagar Tambekar and Sagar Balwant Tambekar in a theft case involving missing gold ornaments (Ganthan), finding the FIR based on mere suspicion with delayed registration and insufficient evidence. The court imposed bail conditions including a Rs. 50,000 bond per applicant, bi-weekly police station attendance, and restrictions on tampering with evidence, emphasizing that the severity of punishment alone cannot justify denying bail and considering the close family relationship between the accused and complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Kolhapur Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to Swati Sagar Tambekar and Sagar Balwant Tambekar in a theft case involving missing gold ornaments (Ganthan), finding the FIR based on mere suspicion with delayed registration and insufficient evidence. The court imposed bail conditions including a Rs. 50,000 bond per applicant, bi-weekly police station attendance, and restrictions on tampering with evidence, emphasizing that the severity of punishment alone cannot justify denying bail and considering the close family relationship between the accused and complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts