Kamlesh Kale vs State Of Maharshtra Through Bund Garden Police Station etc Advocate - Bali Sandeep — 1273/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 02nd April 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHPU010029752026
e-Filing Number
07-03-2026
Filing Number
2091/2026
Filing Date
07-03-2026
Registration No
1273/2026
Registration Date
07-03-2026
Court
District and Session Court ,Pune
Judge
17-DISTRICT JUDGE - 1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
48
Police Station
Bundgarden Police Station
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kamlesh Kale
Adv. GOHIL AGARWAL LAW CHAMBERS
Respondent(s)
State Of Maharshtra Through Bund Garden Police Station etc Advocate - Bali Sandeep
Bund Garden Police Station Pune
Economic Offences Wing Pune
Hearing History
Judge: 17-DISTRICT JUDGE - 1 AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE PUNE
Disposed
Order
Argument on Exh.____Unready
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Order | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready | |
| 07-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Pune Sessions Court rejected anticipatory bail applications from two accused in a trademark fraud case involving the "CAFE PETER" brand. The court found prima-facie evidence of cheating and criminal breach of trust, determining that the accused's surreptitious transfer of the brand to deprive the complainant of contractual rights constituted criminal conduct rather than a civil dispute, and ordered custodial interrogation to recover allegedly misappropriated funds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Court Decision Summary The Pune Sessions Court rejected anticipatory bail applications from two accused in a trademark fraud case involving the "CAFE PETER" brand. The court found prima-facie evidence of cheating and criminal breach of trust, determining that the accused's surreptitious transfer of the brand to deprive the complainant of contractual rights constituted criminal conduct rather than a civil dispute, and ordered custodial interrogation to recover allegedly misappropriated funds. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts