IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail – Court concerned has to be very cautious as grant of interim protection or protection to accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper investigation to a great extent.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals, by special leave, call into question the order dated 19th June, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Bombay¹[Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’] in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 3137 of 2023 and 2499 of 2023, whereby respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10251 of 2024 and respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10255 of 2024, were granted pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 1-103 of 2023.

4. The appellant herein is the complainant-victim²[Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant-complainant.’] who filed Crime No. 1-103 of 2023 at Deccan Police Station, Pune, against her husband, namely, Vishwajeet Vinaykrao Jadhav (respondent No. 4 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10255 of 2024)³[Hereinafter referred to as ‘accused-Vishwajeet.’] and the other accused persons (private respondents in both the appeals) alleging inter alia that these accused persons acting in concert attempted to take forcible possession of a property, known as Hotel Vaishali⁴[Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject-hotel’.], which was owned by the appellant- complainant’s father and devolved upon her post his demise.

5. The appellant-complainant and the accused- Vishwajeet who were married on 1st January, 2018, developed matrimonial strife. The accused- Vishwajeet managed to procure the power of attorney, and a gift deed of the subject-hotel executed in his name. For these acts, the appellant- complainant filed an FIR⁵[FIR No. 119 of 2023] against accused- Vishwajeet and his family members and others on 19th June, 2023, at Shivajinagar Police Station, Pune.

6. The accused-Vishwajeet filed a Civil Suit No. 1248 of 2023 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division who, vide order dated 27th June 2023, granted an interim ex parte injunction in his favour. Armed with the ex parte injunction order, accused- Vishwajeet, along with his companions (co-accused persons) went to the hotel and forcibly trespassed into the premises owned by the appellant- complainant, where they caused extensive damage including disconnecting the CCTV system, cutting down the DVR wires, and vandalizing the interiors of the property.

7. The appellant-complainant registered an FIR being Crime No. 1-103 of 2023, against the accused respondents at Deccan Police Station, Pune on 29th June, 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 149, 323, 387, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.⁶[For short ‘IPC’]

8. The accused respondents herein, apprehending their arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIR, approached the Sessions Court, Pune, seeking the grant of pre-arrest bail. It may be mentioned that, in the meantime, the appellant-complainant had filed a Civil Misc. Appeal No. 254 of 2023 before the District Judge for challenging the ex parte interim order dated 27th June, 2023, which was allowed vide Order dated 17th August, 2023 and the interim order granting injunction was set aside.

9. The application for pre-arrest bail filed by the private respondents came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, vide order dated 25th August, 2023. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took note of the fact that the accused-Vishwajeet, while seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed the material fact that the ex parte injunction order had been set aside by the District Court in appeal filed by the appellant. The accu