State of Maharashtra vs Dinesh Tejraj Solanki And — 141/2024

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,409,34,465,467,468,471,12(B). Status: Charge. Next hearing: 13th April 2026.

Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)

CNR: MHRG170016882024

Charge

Next Hearing

13th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

1121/2024

Filing Date

13-08-2024

Registration No

141/2024

Registration Date

13-08-2024

Court

District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad

Judge

1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

FIR Details

FIR Number

280

Police Station

Karjat Police StationTal.Karjat

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

INDIAN PENAL CODE Section 420,409,34,465,467,468,471,12(B)
Co Operative Societies Act (Maharashtra) Section 81(5)
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act Section 3,4

Petitioner(s)

State of Maharashtra

Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

Dinesh Tejraj Solanki And

Deepak Sakharam Jagtap

Hearing History

Judge: 1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

09-03-2026

Charge

19-01-2026

Charge

09-12-2025

Charge

03-11-2025

Charge

03-10-2025

Charge

Interim Orders

14-01-2025
Order on Exhibit

Summary Bail was granted to accused Dinesh Tejraj Solanki in a financial misappropriation case involving Rs. 1.94 crore. The court found that the investigating officer grossly violated Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code by orally informing the accused of arrest grounds instead of providing written communication, violating constitutional rights under Article 22(5). The accused was released on bail bonds of Rs. 30,000 with conditions including furnishing address proof, attending police station when called, and not intimidating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Bail was granted to accused Dinesh Tejraj Solanki in a financial misappropriation case involving Rs. 1.94 crore. The court found that the investigating officer grossly violated Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code by orally informing the accused of arrest grounds instead of providing written communication, violating constitutional rights under Article 22(5). The accused was released on bail bonds of Rs. 30,000 with conditions including furnishing address proof, attending police station when called, and not intimidating witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case