Suyog Arun Tatar vs State Thr Manmad City Police Stn. — 260/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHNS070006642026

e-Filing Number

06-03-2026

Filing Number

466/2026

Filing Date

06-Mar-2026

Registration No

260/2026

Registration Date

06-Mar-2026

Court

District Court-1 ,Malegaon

Judge

5-District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegoan

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 29-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

92

Police Station

MANMAD CITY POLICE STATION

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Suyog Arun Tatar

    Adv. Sudhir Akkar

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State Thr Manmad City Police Stn.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    The court rejected the bail application of Suyog Arun Tatar, who was charged under Section 318(4) of BNS for allegedly defrauding the complainant of Rs. 10,80,000 through a fake investment scheme promising 5% monthly returns. The court found prima facie evidence of intentional deception, noting that the applicant induced the complainant to invest funds on two separate occasions but failed to return the principal amount despite returning only partial amounts, and WhatsApp communications corroborated the fraudulent scheme. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegoan

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegoan

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 260/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the bail application of Suyog Arun Tatar, who was charged under Section 318(4) of BNS for allegedly defrauding the complainant of Rs. 10,80,000 through a fake investment scheme promising 5% monthly returns. The court found prima facie evidence of intentional deception, noting that the applicant induced the complainant to invest funds on two separate occasions but failed to return the principal amount despite returning only partial amounts, and WhatsApp communications corroborated the fraudulent scheme. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case