1. Property dispute — Forcible trespass and vandalism — FIR registered under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 387, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1097
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3088 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024) With Criminal Appeal No(s). 3089 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10255 of 2024)
Decided On : 21-07-2025
Important Points
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.
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.
Subject
Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.143, S.147, S.149, S.323, S.387, S.427, S.452, S.504, S.506, S.406, S.403, S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471, S.120(b), S.34
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Section 482 of BNSS] – Pre-arrest bail – Grant of – Case registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 387, 427, 452, 504 and 506 of IPC – Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner – There must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offences – High Court clearly erred in extending benefit of pre-arrest bail to accused respondents – In present case, allegations against accused respondents are grave in nature – High Court granted indulgence of pre-arrest bail to accused respondents without considering nature and gravity of allegations attributed to them and fact that there was imminent need for custodial investigation of accused respondents – High Court failed to notice criminal antecedents of accused persons – By threatening witnesses, accused has flouted conditions of anticipatory bail order – Considering gravity of allegations, it is not a case warranting indulgence of pre-arrest bail to accused – Anticipatory bail granted to private respondents hereby cancelled. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
These appeals, by special leave, call into question the order dated 19th June, 2024, passed by Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Bombay 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.
Findings of Court:
Accused respondents shall surrender before trial Court within a period of two weeks from today. They shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered as per law, subject to the right of the Investigating Officer to seek police custody/remand.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Ms. Sonali Suryawanshi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Malani, Adv. Ms. Pradnya Bheke, Adv. Mr. Dikshant Mandhan, Adv. Mr. Shankey Agrawal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Ms. Sonali Suryawanshi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Malani, Adv. Ms. Pradnya Bheke, Adv. Mr. Dikshant Mandhan, Adv. Mr. Shankey Agrawal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Cancellation of anticipatory bail — Grounds of grave allegations, criminal antecedents, non-cooperation with investigation, and witness intimidation. (Para 15 , 16 )
3. High Court overlooked the gravity of offences, concealment of material facts, criminal antecedents, and violation of bail conditions through witness intimidation. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 )
4. Anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy requiring cautious discretion, particularly where custodial investigation is necessary or bail conditions are violated. (Para 18 , 20 )
5. Impugned order quashed — Anticipatory bail cancelled — Accused directed to surrender before the trial court. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Is anticipatory bail considered a routine rule of law?
No, it is an extraordinary power and an exceptional remedy. Its grant depends on the cautious and judicious discretion of the court, as granting it in serious cases may hamper investigation or lead to evidence tampering. (Para 18 )
7. What factors may justify the cancellation of anticipatory bail?
Factors include the gravity of allegations, the accused misleading the court by concealing material facts, the existence of criminal antecedents, and the necessity for custodial investigation. (Para 19 , 20 )
8. How does the violation of bail conditions affect the accused's status?
If an accused flouts the conditions of an anticipatory bail order, such as by threatening witnesses, they cannot be allowed to continue benefiting from the bail. (Para 20 )
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 accused- Vishwajeet actually relied upon the said ex parte interim order to obtain interim bail.
10. Be that as it may, the accused respondents approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail by way of Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 3137 of 2023 and 2499 of 2023. The aforesaid applications filed by accused respondents stand allowed vide order dated 19th December, 2024, which is subject matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave.
11. The accused respondents in both the appeals though duly served, have
