State of Maharashtra through Islampur Police Station vs Jitendra Mahadev Yadav etc — 4/2026

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,406,34,409. Status: Appearance. Next hearing: 22nd July 2026.

Appearance Next hearing 22-Jul-2026 this date has passed

Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)

CNR: MHSN040000262026

e-Filing Number

08-01-2026

Filing Number

15/2026

Filing Date

08-Jan-2026

Registration No

4/2026

Registration Date

08-Jan-2026

Court

Add District Court , Islampur

Judge

7-District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Islampur

Last updated 12-Jul-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

300

Police Station

Islampur

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 420,406,34,409
Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act Section 3,4

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State of Maharashtra through Islampur Police Station

    Adv. Patil Shubhangi Vikram

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Jitendra Mahadev Yadav etc

  2. 2.Dipali Jitendra Yadav

  3. 3.Yogeandra Mahadev Yadav

  4. 4.Prakash Sahebrao Patil

  5. 5.Nanda Prakash Patil

Case History

  1. 22-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Jul-2026

    Appearance

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Islampur

  3. 25-Jun-2026

    Appearance

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Islampur

  4. 12-Jun-2026

    Appearance

    District Judge-1 Addl. Sessions Judge Islampur

  5. 22-May-2026

    Appearance

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  6. 08-May-2026

    Appearance

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  7. 24-Apr-2026

    Order on ExhibitView PDF

    Case Summary Bail Application Rejected – Accused Jitendra Mahadev Yadav's regular bail application in an economic offence case involving alleged investment fraud was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur on 24 April 2026. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of cheating and criminal breach of trust involving ₹5.03 crore collected from 15 investors under false promises of 4% monthly returns, determined arrest procedures were legally compliant, and held that the accused—as the alleged mastermind and main firm operator—was not entitled to bail given ongoing asset investigations and flight risk concerns. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  8. 24-Apr-2026

    Appearance

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  9. 23-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  10. 20-Apr-2026

    Order on Exh

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  11. 18-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  12. 16-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Ready

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  13. 13-Apr-2026

    Argument on Exh.____Unready

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  14. 09-Apr-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  15. 01-Apr-2026

    Filing of Say on Exh___Unready

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  16. 25-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  17. 09-Mar-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  18. 20-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  19. 04-Feb-2026

    Awaiting Summons

    Adhoc Dist. Judge-1 Addl.sessions Judgeislampur

  20. 17-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 08-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 4/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Bail Application Rejected – Accused Jitendra Mahadev Yadav's regular bail application in an economic offence case involving alleged investment fraud was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur on 24 April 2026. The court found sufficient prima facie evidence of cheating and criminal breach of trust involving ₹5.03 crore collected from 15 investors under false promises of 4% monthly returns, determined arrest procedures were legally compliant, and held that the accused—as the alleged mastermind and main firm operator—was not entitled to bail given ongoing asset investigations and flight risk concerns. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case