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.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHNS070006642026
e-Filing Number
06-03-2026
Filing Number
466/2026
Filing Date
06-03-2026
Registration No
260/2026
Registration Date
06-03-2026
Court
District Court-1 ,Malegaon
Judge
5-District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegoan
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
92
Police Station
MANMAD CITY POLICE STATION
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suyog Arun Tatar
Adv. Sudhir Akkar
Respondent(s)
State Thr Manmad City Police Stn.
Hearing History
Judge: 5-District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Malegoan
Disposed
Arguments
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 06-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts