BALASAHEB RATAN BAGUL And 01 vs The State Of Maharashtra — 104/2024
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397. Status: Notice_Unready. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
Cri.Rev.App. - Criminal Revision Application
CNR: MHRG170022352024
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
21-10-2024
Filing Number
1513/2024
Filing Date
21-10-2024
Registration No
104/2024
Registration Date
05-11-2024
Court
District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad
Judge
6-District Judge - 3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BALASAHEB RATAN BAGUL And 01
Adv. BABRE KALPANA NARENDRA
Saptashrungi Investment And financial Services Through it's Proprietor BALASAHEB RATAN BAGUL
Respondent(s)
The State Of Maharashtra
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District Judge - 3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
Notice_Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Notice_Unready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Notice_Unready | |
| 26-02-2026 | Notice_Unready | |
| 07-01-2026 | Notice_Unready | |
| 22-12-2025 | Notice_Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Criminal Revision Application filed by Balasaheb Ratan Bagul seeking stay of Criminal Case No. 432/2022 (involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust related to share market investments of ₹27 lakhs) has been rejected. The court found insufficient grounds for granting stay, noting that the Magistrate's earlier rejection of the discharge application was justified due to strong prima facie evidence against the applicant, and that the applicant failed to specifically demonstrate irreparable loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Criminal Revision Application filed by Balasaheb Ratan Bagul seeking stay of Criminal Case No. 432/2022 (involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust related to share market investments of ₹27 lakhs) has been rejected. The court found insufficient grounds for granting stay, noting that the Magistrate's earlier rejection of the discharge application was justified due to strong prima facie evidence against the applicant, and that the applicant failed to specifically demonstrate irreparable loss. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts