Kalpesh Babu Pangare vs State of Maharashtra Through Mahad M I D C Police Station Cr. No. 150/2025 — 26/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 20th March 2026.
Cri.M.A. - Criminal Misc. Application
CNR: MHRG150001172026
e-Filing Number
18-02-2026
Filing Number
65/2026
Filing Date
18-02-2026
Registration No
26/2026
Registration Date
18-02-2026
Court
District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon
Judge
2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge Mangaon
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
150
Police Station
Mahad M.I.D.C. Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kalpesh Babu Pangare
Adv. KAMBLE SUSHIL RAMCHANDRA
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra Through Mahad M I D C Police Station Cr. No. 150/2025
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Judge 1 and Addl. Session Judge Mangaon
Disposed
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Argument on Exh.____Ready
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 18-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 16-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 12-03-2026 | Argument on Exh.____Ready |
| 04-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Ready |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Kalpesh Babu Pangare's bail application, finding prima facie evidence that he defrauded the informant of ₹41 lakhs by falsely promising a ₹30-crore commercial loan, then issued death threats and abuse when confronted. The court noted his prior absconding, two other pending crimes, flight risk, and that he had been in custody less than two months, making bail inappropriate at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Kalpesh Babu Pangare's bail application, finding prima facie evidence that he defrauded the informant of ₹41 lakhs by falsely promising a ₹30-crore commercial loan, then issued death threats and abuse when confronted. The court noted his prior absconding, two other pending crimes, flight risk, and that he had been in custody less than two months, making bail inappropriate at that stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts