Abhijeet Dayanand Tandel vs State of Maharashtra through Nhava Sheva Police Station — 872/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 24th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHRG170019582025
e-Filing Number
28-10-2025
Filing Number
1469/2025
Filing Date
29-10-2025
Registration No
872/2025
Registration Date
29-10-2025
Court
District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad
Judge
1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel
Decision Date
24th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
71
Police Station
Nhava Sheva Police Station
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Abhijeet Dayanand Tandel
Adv. Mohsin Ghaniwala
Vedak Dayanand Tandel
Adv. Mohsin Ghaniwala
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra through Nhava Sheva Police Station
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel
Disposed
Order
Order
Order
Order
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Order | |
| 16-03-2026 | Order | |
| 13-03-2026 | Order | |
| 12-03-2026 | Order |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Panvel rejected the anticipatory bail application of Abhijit Dayanand Tandel and Vedak Dayanand Tandel, who were accused of defrauding investors through a fraudulent "Secret Trading Scheme" promising 10-20% returns. The court found that the applicants induced investors to invest over Rs. 1 crore, misappropriated the funds for personal benefit, and caused significant economic loss. The judge determined that custodial interrogation was necessary given the magnitude of the economic offense and the modus operandi employed, and therefore declined to grant pre-arrest bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Panvel rejected the anticipatory bail application of Abhijit Dayanand Tandel and Vedak Dayanand Tandel, who were accused of defrauding investors through a fraudulent "Secret Trading Scheme" promising 10-20% returns. The court found that the applicants induced investors to invest over Rs. 1 crore, misappropriated the funds for personal benefit, and caused significant economic loss. The judge determined that custodial interrogation was necessary given the magnitude of the economic offense and the modus operandi employed, and therefore declined to grant pre-arrest bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts