The State of Maharashtra vs Shivaji Gopal Jadhav — 43/2025
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(3),318(4),316(2),316(5),3(5). Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHSO010035332024
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
2389/2024
Filing Date
31-12-2024
Registration No
43/2025
Registration Date
03-03-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Solapur
Judge
2-District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
FIR Details
FIR Number
295
Police Station
Mandrup
Year
2024
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of Maharashtra
Adv. DGP P.M. Rajput
Respondent(s)
Shivaji Gopal Jadhav
Sachin Shivaji Jadhav
Puja Sachin Jadhav
Sachin Kisan Chavan (Absconding)
Sujata Sachin Chavan (Absconding)
Sunita Shivaji Jadhav
Hearing History
Judge: 2-District Judge - 3 and Additional Session Judge
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-06-2026 | Hearing |
| 19-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 05-05-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-04-2026 | Hearing |
| 21-04-2026 | Hearing |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Special Case No. 43/2025 Outcome: Bail application REJECTED Accused Sunita Shivaji Jadhav's bail application under Section 483 BNSS was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur on 04.04.2026. The court found prima facie evidence of her involvement in a serious economic offence involving cheating and misappropriation of over Rs. 5.55 crore through fraudulent finance companies, with 199 investors defrauded. The court rejected her claims of innocence, cited danger of absconding and witness intimidation, and emphasized that strict bail principles applicable to heinous offences equally apply to serious economic crimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Special Case No. 43/2025 Outcome: Bail application REJECTED Accused Sunita Shivaji Jadhav's bail application under Section 483 BNSS was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur on 04.04.2026. The court found prima facie evidence of her involvement in a serious economic offence involving cheating and misappropriation of over Rs. 5.55 crore through fraudulent finance companies, with 199 investors defrauded. The court rejected her claims of innocence, cited danger of absconding and witness intimidation, and emphasized that strict bail principles applicable to heinous offences equally apply to serious economic crimes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts