Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 878
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024)
NIKITA JAGGANATH SHETTY @
NIKITA VISHWAJEET JADHAV ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10255 of 2024)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals, by special leave, call into
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.21
17:54:20 IST
Reason:
th
question the order dated 19 June, 2024, passed by
1
the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature
1
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 in connection with Crime No. 1-103 of
2023.
2
4. The appellant herein is the complainant-victim
who filed Crime No. 1-103 of 2023 at Deccan Police
Station, Pune, against her husband, namely,
Vishwajeet Vinaykrao Jadhav (respondent No. 4 in
3
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10255 of 2024) 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
4
Vaishali , which was owned by the appellant-
complainant’s father and devolved upon her post his
demise.
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’.
2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant-complainant.’
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘accused-Vishwajeet.’
4
Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject-hotel’.
2
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
5. The appellant-complainant and the accused-
st
Vishwajeet who were married on 1 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-
5
complainant filed an FIR against accused-
Vishwajeet and his family members and others on
th
19 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
th
Division who, vide order dated 27 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.
5
FIR No. 119 of 2023.
3
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
7. The appellant-complainant registered an FIR
being Crime No. 1-103 of 2023, against the accused
th
respondents at Deccan Police Station, Pune on 29
June, 2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 387, 427, 452, 504 and
6
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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
th
27 June, 2023, which was allowed vide Order dated
th
17 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
th
25 August, 2023. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge took note of the fact that the accused-
6
For short ‘IPC’.
4
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
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
th
order dated 19 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 chosen not to put in
appearance before this Court.
7
12. Respondent No.1-State has filed counter
affidavit supporting the appellant-complainant and
levelling grave allegations against the accused
respondents including that of misusing and violating
the conditions of the ad interim bail. There is a
7
Hereinafter, referred to as “State”.
5
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
specific allegation in the counter affidavit that the
accused-Vishwajeet threatened an employee of the
subject-hotel, namely, Bahadur (the guard), with dire
consequences insinuating that he would be removed
from his job. A non-cognizable Crime No. 283 of 2023
has been registered against the accused-Vishwajeet,
for the said act of threatening the witnesses.
13. In addition thereto, the counter affidavit filed by
the State also refers to a complaint that has been
registered at Deccan Police Station, Pune, which led
to registration of Crime No. 167 of 2023 against the
accused-Vishwajeet for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 403, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B
read with Section 34 of the IPC. The allegations in the
said FIR pertain to misuse of power of attorney and
securing a loan of Rs. 5 crores by mortgaging the
subject-hotel using duplicate documents. Accused-
Vishwajeet was involved in yet another incident of
threatening the employees of the appellant-
th
complainant on 4 December, 2023, for which
another application was submitted at the police
station. Accused-Vishwajeet also faces four more
criminal cases in addition to FIR No. 1-103 of 2023,
6
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
which fact is noted at paragraph (j) of the counter
affidavit.
14. The presence of the other accused persons at
the scene of the crime, for the purpose of removing
the existing banners from the subject-hotel, has also
been recorded in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit,
which is based on the recordings captured in the
CCTV footage.
15. It is in this background that the appellant-
complainant seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail
granted to the accused respondents.
16. The State has supported the plea of the
appellant-complainant seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the accused respondents.
It is specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit
that the police custody of accused-Vishwajeet is
necessary because he did not cooperate in the
investigation.
17. Having heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-
complainant and learned Standing counsel for the
State, and after going through the impugned order
7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
and the material placed on record, we find that the
High Court clearly erred in extending the benefit of
pre-arrest bail to the accused respondents.
18. This Court, in numerous judgments, has held
that 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. In this regard, we may gainfully refer
8
to Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar wherein
this Court noted as follows:
“We have already held that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power.
Though in many cases it was held that bail is
said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is
the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question
of its grant should be left to the cautious and
judicious discretion by the Court depending
on the facts and circumstances of each case.
While called upon to exercise the said
power, the Court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection
or protection to the accused in serious
cases may lead to miscarriage of justice
and may hamper the investigation to a
great extent as it may sometimes lead to
tampering or distraction of the evidence.
We shall not be understood to have held
that the Court shall not pass an interim
8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 282.
8
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
protection pending consideration of such
application as the Section is destined to
safeguard the freedom of an individual
against unwarranted arrest and we say that
such orders shall be passed in eminently fit
cases ….”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In the present case, the allegations against the
accused respondents, including accused-Vishwajeet,
are grave in nature. There is a clear observation by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the bail
th
rejection order dated 7 September 2023 that the
accused respondents tried to mislead the Court by
concealing the fact that the ex parte injunction order
th
dated 27 June, 2023 had been set aside in appeal.
The High Court seems to have glossed over this
important aspect of the case and granted indulgence
of pre-arrest bail to the accused respondents without
considering the nature and gravity of allegations
attributed to them and the fact that there was an
imminent need for custodial investigation of the
accused respondents.
20. Additionally, the High Court failed to notice the
criminal antecedents of the accused persons, which
are highlighted in the counter affidavit filed by the
9
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
State. Apparently, the incident recorded in the FIR
was a clear-cut attempt by the estranged husband
(accused-Vishwajeet) to dispossess his own wife
(appellant-complainant) from her lawfully inherited
property i.e., the subject-hotel, by use of force and by
employing henchmen to do the dirty work. Hence,
considering the gravity of allegations, it is not a case
warranting indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the
accused. In our view, the High Court clearly erred in
granting such liberty to the accused respondents.
Furthermore, by threatening the witnesses, the
accused-Vishwajeet has flouted the conditions of
anticipatory bail order. For this reason, also he
cannot be allowed to continue on anticipatory bail.
21. In the wake of the discussion made
th
hereinabove, the impugned order dated 19 June,
2024 passed by the High Court, is hereby quashed
and set aside. The anticipatory bail granted to the
private respondents in both the appeals is hereby
cancelled. The accused respondents shall surrender
before the 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,
10
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
subject to the right of the Investigating Officer to seek
police custody/remand.
22. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2025.
11
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024)
NIKITA JAGGANATH SHETTY @
NIKITA VISHWAJEET JADHAV ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10255 of 2024)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals, by special leave, call into
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.07.21
17:54:20 IST
Reason:
th
question the order dated 19 June, 2024, passed by
1
the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature
1
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 in connection with Crime No. 1-103 of
2023.
2
4. The appellant herein is the complainant-victim
who filed Crime No. 1-103 of 2023 at Deccan Police
Station, Pune, against her husband, namely,
Vishwajeet Vinaykrao Jadhav (respondent No. 4 in
3
Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10255 of 2024) 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
4
Vaishali , which was owned by the appellant-
complainant’s father and devolved upon her post his
demise.
1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’.
2
Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant-complainant.’
3
Hereinafter referred to as ‘accused-Vishwajeet.’
4
Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject-hotel’.
2
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
5. The appellant-complainant and the accused-
st
Vishwajeet who were married on 1 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-
5
complainant filed an FIR against accused-
Vishwajeet and his family members and others on
th
19 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
th
Division who, vide order dated 27 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.
5
FIR No. 119 of 2023.
3
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
7. The appellant-complainant registered an FIR
being Crime No. 1-103 of 2023, against the accused
th
respondents at Deccan Police Station, Pune on 29
June, 2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 387, 427, 452, 504 and
6
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
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
th
27 June, 2023, which was allowed vide Order dated
th
17 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
th
25 August, 2023. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge took note of the fact that the accused-
6
For short ‘IPC’.
4
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
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
th
order dated 19 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 chosen not to put in
appearance before this Court.
7
12. Respondent No.1-State has filed counter
affidavit supporting the appellant-complainant and
levelling grave allegations against the accused
respondents including that of misusing and violating
the conditions of the ad interim bail. There is a
7
Hereinafter, referred to as “State”.
5
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
specific allegation in the counter affidavit that the
accused-Vishwajeet threatened an employee of the
subject-hotel, namely, Bahadur (the guard), with dire
consequences insinuating that he would be removed
from his job. A non-cognizable Crime No. 283 of 2023
has been registered against the accused-Vishwajeet,
for the said act of threatening the witnesses.
13. In addition thereto, the counter affidavit filed by
the State also refers to a complaint that has been
registered at Deccan Police Station, Pune, which led
to registration of Crime No. 167 of 2023 against the
accused-Vishwajeet for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 403, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B
read with Section 34 of the IPC. The allegations in the
said FIR pertain to misuse of power of attorney and
securing a loan of Rs. 5 crores by mortgaging the
subject-hotel using duplicate documents. Accused-
Vishwajeet was involved in yet another incident of
threatening the employees of the appellant-
th
complainant on 4 December, 2023, for which
another application was submitted at the police
station. Accused-Vishwajeet also faces four more
criminal cases in addition to FIR No. 1-103 of 2023,
6
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
which fact is noted at paragraph (j) of the counter
affidavit.
14. The presence of the other accused persons at
the scene of the crime, for the purpose of removing
the existing banners from the subject-hotel, has also
been recorded in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit,
which is based on the recordings captured in the
CCTV footage.
15. It is in this background that the appellant-
complainant seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail
granted to the accused respondents.
16. The State has supported the plea of the
appellant-complainant seeking cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted to the accused respondents.
It is specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit
that the police custody of accused-Vishwajeet is
necessary because he did not cooperate in the
investigation.
17. Having heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-
complainant and learned Standing counsel for the
State, and after going through the impugned order
7
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
and the material placed on record, we find that the
High Court clearly erred in extending the benefit of
pre-arrest bail to the accused respondents.
18. This Court, in numerous judgments, has held
that 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. In this regard, we may gainfully refer
8
to Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar wherein
this Court noted as follows:
“We have already held that the power to grant
anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power.
Though in many cases it was held that bail is
said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is
the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question
of its grant should be left to the cautious and
judicious discretion by the Court depending
on the facts and circumstances of each case.
While called upon to exercise the said
power, the Court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection
or protection to the accused in serious
cases may lead to miscarriage of justice
and may hamper the investigation to a
great extent as it may sometimes lead to
tampering or distraction of the evidence.
We shall not be understood to have held
that the Court shall not pass an interim
8
2024 SCC OnLine SC 282.
8
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
protection pending consideration of such
application as the Section is destined to
safeguard the freedom of an individual
against unwarranted arrest and we say that
such orders shall be passed in eminently fit
cases ….”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In the present case, the allegations against the
accused respondents, including accused-Vishwajeet,
are grave in nature. There is a clear observation by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the bail
th
rejection order dated 7 September 2023 that the
accused respondents tried to mislead the Court by
concealing the fact that the ex parte injunction order
th
dated 27 June, 2023 had been set aside in appeal.
The High Court seems to have glossed over this
important aspect of the case and granted indulgence
of pre-arrest bail to the accused respondents without
considering the nature and gravity of allegations
attributed to them and the fact that there was an
imminent need for custodial investigation of the
accused respondents.
20. Additionally, the High Court failed to notice the
criminal antecedents of the accused persons, which
are highlighted in the counter affidavit filed by the
9
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
State. Apparently, the incident recorded in the FIR
was a clear-cut attempt by the estranged husband
(accused-Vishwajeet) to dispossess his own wife
(appellant-complainant) from her lawfully inherited
property i.e., the subject-hotel, by use of force and by
employing henchmen to do the dirty work. Hence,
considering the gravity of allegations, it is not a case
warranting indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the
accused. In our view, the High Court clearly erred in
granting such liberty to the accused respondents.
Furthermore, by threatening the witnesses, the
accused-Vishwajeet has flouted the conditions of
anticipatory bail order. For this reason, also he
cannot be allowed to continue on anticipatory bail.
21. In the wake of the discussion made
th
hereinabove, the impugned order dated 19 June,
2024 passed by the High Court, is hereby quashed
and set aside. The anticipatory bail granted to the
private respondents in both the appeals is hereby
cancelled. The accused respondents shall surrender
before the 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,
10
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024
subject to the right of the Investigating Officer to seek
police custody/remand.
22. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 21, 2025.
11
Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10251 of 2024