The state of Maharashtra vs Praveen Balkirshna Patil ors Advocate - Mhatre M.S. — 555/2019
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 409,420,201,120B,34,. Status: Charge. Next hearing: 04th May 2026.
MAHA P.I.D. 1999. - Special Case under Mah. P.I.D. Act
CNR: MHRG170130562019
Next Hearing
04th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
555/2019
Filing Date
01-03-2006
Registration No
555/2019
Registration Date
21-12-2019
Court
District and Addl. Sessions Judge, Panvel, Dist., Raigad
Judge
1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel
FIR Details
FIR Number
52
Police Station
Uran Police station
Year
2004
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The state of Maharashtra
Adv. Government pleader
Respondent(s)
Praveen Balkirshna Patil ors Advocate - Mhatre M.S.
Prakash Bhauravji Gaulkar
Sunita Narayan Lonare
Sindhu Revaram Bagade @ Nilima Jitendra@ Chandrabos Desai
Ashok Kishor Das
Aslam Mahammad Khan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge 1 and additional sessions Judge Panvel
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
Charge
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | Charge | |
| 20-04-2026 | Charge | |
| 10-03-2026 | Charge | |
| 12-02-2026 | Charge | |
| 09-01-2026 | Charge |
Interim Orders
Summary: The bail application of Sau. Sindhu Rajaram Bagade, accused in a financial fraud case involving misappropriation under IPC sections 406, 420, 120(B) and the Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act, 1999, has been rejected and dismissed. The court held that despite the applicant claiming to be a non-active director, she was charge-sheeted as an absconding accused who evaded arrest for 18 years, and considering the serious nature of economic offences and her conduct, she cannot be enlarged on bail. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The bail application of Sau. Sindhu Rajaram Bagade, accused in a financial fraud case involving misappropriation under IPC sections 406, 420, 120(B) and the Maharashtra Protection of Investors and Depositors Act, 1999, has been rejected and dismissed. The court held that despite the applicant claiming to be a non-active director, she was charge-sheeted as an absconding accused who evaded arrest for 18 years, and considering the serious nature of economic offences and her conduct, she cannot be enlarged on 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