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.

Case disposed

Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application

CNR: MHRG170019582025

e-Filing Number

28-10-2025

Filing Number

1469/2025

Filing Date

29-Oct-2025

Registration No

872/2025

Registration Date

29-Oct-2025

Court

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

Judge

1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECTED

Last updated 13-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

71

Police Station

Nhava Sheva Police Station

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Abhijeet Dayanand Tandel

    Adv. Mohsin Ghaniwala

  2. 2.Vedak Dayanand Tandel

    Adv. Mohsin Ghaniwala

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra through Nhava Sheva Police Station

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    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.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  7. 12-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  8. 09-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  9. 06-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  10. 04-Mar-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  11. 28-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  12. 27-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  13. 25-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  14. 23-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  15. 21-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  16. 20-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  17. 17-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  18. 13-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  19. 12-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  20. 09-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  21. 06-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  22. 04-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  23. 02-Feb-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  24. 29-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  25. 24-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  26. 22-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  27. 20-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  28. 17-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  29. 14-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  30. 12-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  31. 08-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  32. 05-Jan-2026

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  33. 31-Dec-2025

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  34. 24-Dec-2025

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  35. 19-Dec-2025

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  36. 15-Dec-2025

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  37. 10-Dec-2025

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  38. 02-Dec-2025

    Order

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  39. 27-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  40. 25-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  41. 20-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  42. 18-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  43. 13-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  44. 11-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  45. 10-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  46. 04-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel

  47. 29-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  48. 29-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 872/2025

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case