RAMEEZ SHAUKAT THOBANI AND ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 249258

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR
RAMEEZ SHAUKAT THOBANI AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
ABA/3543/2025

Important Points

Anticipatory bail may be granted in criminal cases arising from civil property disputes when the parties arrive at a mutual settlement, provided the applicants submit binding undertakings to the court to resolve the civil conflict and relinquish claims to the disputed property.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail and Bonds

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: S.3(5), S.340(2), S.336(3), S.318(4), S.319(2)

Headnote

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 3(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3) and 340(2) - Anticipatory bail - Grant of pre-arrest bail - Factors governing judicial discretion - Voluntary undertaking to settle civil dispute and relinquish possession - Effect on criminal recovery. (Paras 4, 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicants sought pre-arrest bail concerning allegations of creating false and fabricated documents, including a fraudulent request under a transparency statute, arising from a pre-existing leave and license agreement. While the informant alleged criminal acts of cheating and forgery, the applicants maintained that the criminal proceedings were initiated to exert pressure regarding an ongoing civil property dispute. Before the court, the applicants expressed a bona fide intention to amicably resolve the issue, committing to vacate the premises, withdraw the pending civil litigation, and cease all claims against the informant, which the latter accepted.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that although the allegations of forgery and cheating are serious, the primary context of the dispute is civil in nature. Given the participants' mutual agreement to resolve the underlying property conflict and the commitment made by the applicants to fully vacate the premises, the court determined that the case warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in granting pre-arrest bail, subject to strict conditions.

Issues: Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant pre-arrest bail in a criminal matter primarily stemming from a civil property dispute where the parties have reached a settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where criminal allegations arise out of an underlying civil partition or possession dispute and the parties reach a verified amicable settlement, the court may grant anticipatory bail by incorporating the terms of the settlement as formal undertakings to the court, thereby ensuring the resolution of both the civil and criminal facets of the conflict.

Result: Anticipatory bail granted subject to compliance with the undertakings and specified investigation-related conditions.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjeev Kadam, Chinmay Patil, Yash Mehta, Seoul Shah, Vikram Sutaria, Hrituraj Singh
For the Respondents: S. K. Gajre

##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AS:57543 634-ABA-3543-2025.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3543 OF 2025

Rameez Shaukat Thobani & Anr. …Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ST) NO.26392 OF 2025

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3543 OF 2025

Yogendra Pukhraj Vyas …Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w. Mr. Chinmay Patil, Mr. Yash Mehta, Mr.

Seoul Shah, for the Applicants.

Mr. Vikram Sutaria (through Video Conferencing) a/w. Mr. Hrituraj

Singh, for the Intervenor.

Ms. S. K. Gajre, APP, for the Respondent-State.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 24^th DECEMBER 2025

PC:-

1. Heard Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Applicants, Mr. Vikram Sutaria, learned Counsel appearing for the

Intervenor and Ms. Gajre, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.

Page 1

Sonali

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:12:01 :::

##PAGE2##

634-ABA-3543-2025.DOC

2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection

with C.R. No.824 of 2025 registered with Yerwada Police Station,

Pune City, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5),

340(2), 336(3), 336(2), 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph Nos. 2 to 4 of the

order dated 18^th December 2025 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.8443 of 2025,

which reads as under:

“2] In brief it is case of the prosecution that

informant have given his property on leave and

license basis by registered document no. 16477 of

2023 to applicant no. 1 for the period of 5 years

though the agent. Thereafter she asked the applicant

no.1 to vacate the said premises as it was required for

her. But the applicant no. 1 did not respond the

informant. So she filed petition before the competent

authority. In the mean time the applicant no. 1 filed

Spl. Civil suit no. 632 of 2025 for specific

performance of contract on the ground that the

informant agreed to sell the said property to him.

3] Suddenly, the applicant no. 2 who is the employee

of applicant no. 1 in back behind of the informant

given an application under RTI Act before MSEDL

Shastrinagar, Pune to know that in whose name the

electric meter of the house was fixed. The said

application was given by putting the signature of the

informant and her mobile number and it was shown

Page 2

Sonali

::: Uploaded on - 24/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2026 19:12:01 :::

##PAGE3##

634-ABA-3543-2025.DOC

that she is the proper person who is asking

information under RTI Act. She got knowledge

about it when she got information from the

competent authority on telephone that the

information asked by her is ready and she can take

the information. Thus the applicant no.1 & 2 have

created false and fabricated document and cheated

the informant at the office of MSEDL and lodged

report. On her report offence described above is

registered.

4] Applicant gave this application contending that

they did not give any application as civil dispute is

pending between applicant and informant. To give

criminal nature to dispute false case is filed. The

custody of applicant is not required for investigation

of the crime. Hence they may be released on

anticipatory bail.”

4. It is the submission of Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Counsel

that the Applicants are not involved in the crime. However, he

submits that the Applicants are ready to settle all the disputes with

the Intervenor i.e. the First Informant. He tenders affidavit dated

24^th December 2025 of the Applicants. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the

said affidavit are relevant, which read as under:

3. I state that, with a bona fide intention to amicably

resolve the disputes and bring a complete quietus to

all litigations, I have proposed a settlement to the

Complainant, without prejudice and without

admitting any allegations or liability. Hereto annexed

and ma