The Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court, holding that such relief is an “extraordinary remedy” and must not be granted routinely, especially in grave offences. The Court emphasized that concealing material facts (like a vacated injunction order) and witness intimidation vitiate bail. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary due to the accused’s non-cooperation and criminal antecedents, violating bail conditions. The ruling reaffirmed strict judicial scrutiny under Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) to prevent miscarriage of justice[
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves a property dispute between Nikita Jagganath Shetty (the appellant) and her estranged husband, Vishwajeet Jadhav (respondent No. 4), along with other co-accused. Nikita inherited Hotel Vaishali in Pune from her father, but after marital discord, Vishwajeet fraudulently obtained a power of attorney and gift deed for the property. On June 19, 2023, Nikita filed an FIR against him for forgery. Meanwhile, Vishwajeet secured an ex-parte interim injunction from a civil court on June 27, 2023, which he later used to forcibly trespass into the hotel, vandalize it, and disconnect CCTV systems. Nikita registered another FIR (Crime No. 1-103 of 2023) for offenses including trespass, criminal intimidation, and destruction of property.The accused sought anticipatory bail, which the Sessions Court denied, noting Vishwajeet’s concealment of the fact that the civil court’s injunction had been set aside in appeal. However, the Bombay High Court granted them pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, citing the gravity of the offenses, Vishwajeet’s criminal antecedents (including witness intimidation and multiple pending cases), and his non-cooperation in the investigation. The Court ruled that anticipatory bail should not shield accused persons who manipulate legal processes or obstruct justice, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation in serious cases.
Procedural History:
The case began with the filing of FIR No. 119 of 2023 at Shivajinagar Police Station, Pune, by Nikita Shetty against her husband, Vishwajeet Jadhav, and others for fraudulently obtaining a power of attorney and gift deed for Hotel Vaishali. After Vishwajeet forcibly took possession of the property using an ex-parte interim injunction (Civil Suit No. 1248 of 2023), Nikita lodged Crime No. 1-103 of 2023 at Deccan Police Station for trespass, vandalism, and intimidation. The Sessions Court, Pune, rejected the accused’s anticipatory bail plea on August 25, 2023, noting Vishwajeet’s concealment of the fact that the injunction had been set aside in appeal (Civil Misc. Appeal No. 254 of 2023).The accused then approached the Bombay High Court, which granted them anticipatory bail on December 19, 2024. Nikita challenged this order in the Supreme Court via SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10251 & 10255 of 2024, arguing that the High Court ignored material facts and the accused’s criminal conduct. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated July 21, 2025, quashed the High Court’s order, cancelling the anticipatory bail. It ruled that the accused misled the courts, violated bail conditions, and warranted custodial interrogation, directing them to surrender and seek regular bail if eligible.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Rules on Oral Family Arrangement: Legal Heirs Can’t Overturn Registered Will
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while overturning the Bombay High Court’s grant of anticipatory bail. It emphasized that anticipatory bail is an “extraordinary remedy” and should not be granted routinely, especially in cases involving grave offenses like forgery, trespass, and criminal intimidation. The Court noted that the accused had misled the lower courts by concealing the fact that the ex-parte injunction order—which they used to justify their actions—had already been set aside in appeal. This lack of bona fides disqualified them from equitable relief.The Court further observed that the accused had flouted bail conditions by intimidating witnesses and failing to cooperate with the investigation, as highlighted in the State’s counter-affidavit. It stressed that custodial interrogation was necessary given the seriousness of the allegations, the accused’s criminal antecedents, and the need to prevent evidence tampering. Relying on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024), the judgment reiterated that courts must exercise extreme caution in granting pre-arrest bail to avoid miscarriage of justice and obstruction of investigations. The High Court’s oversight of these factors rendered its order legally unsustainable.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the Bombay High Court’s order that had granted anticipatory bail to the accused respondents. It cancelled the pre-arrest bail, holding that the High Court had erred in its discretion by ignoring material facts—including the accused’s concealment of the vacated injunction order and their subsequent witness intimidation. The Court directed the accused to surrender within two weeks before the trial court, where they could apply for regular bail, subject to the prosecution’s right to seek custodial interrogation.In its final judgment, the Court reaffirmed the stringent standards for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, emphasizing that such relief should not be granted in cases involving serious offenses, non-cooperation with investigations, or criminal antecedents. The ruling reinforced that anticipatory bail is not a right but an exceptional safeguard against misuse of arrest powers, particularly where the accused demonstrate a propensity to obstruct justice. The decision underscored the primacy of custodial interrogation in uncovering the truth, especially in property disputes tainted by fraud and coercion. The pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 878 Criminal Appeal No.:(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 10251 & 10255 of 2024) Date of Judgment: 21st July 2025 Bench: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here