The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that custodial interrogation may be necessary to establish complicity and intent, even in cases based on documentary evidence. The Court underscored the gravity of allegations involving abuse of official position. It further issued general directions mandating the expeditious disposal of bail applications to uphold the constitutional right to personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21.
Facts Of The Case:
Based on a complaint concerning fraudulent property transfer, an FIR was registered in 2019 regarding events from 1996. The core allegation was that a sale deed was executed using forged Powers of Attorney, which were purportedly signed by individuals who were already deceased. This sale deed was then used to mutate land records in favour of the beneficiary, Mahesh Yashwant Bhoir (A1). The appellants, who were a Circle Officer and a Talathi (revenue officials) at the relevant time, were subsequently arraigned as accused. Their alleged role was that they officially certified the mutation entries based on the presented, but allegedly fabricated, documents, thereby facilitating the illegal transfer. These very mutation entries were cancelled by a superior revenue authority in 1998. The appellants, who had since retired, sought anticipatory bail, contending they acted in their official capacity without any dishonest intent or personal gain, and highlighted an unexplained delay of over 20 years in lodging the FIR. Their applications were rejected by both the Sessions Court and the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case commenced with the appellants filing Anticipatory Bail Applications before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, which were rejected on 21.06.2019 after initial interim protection. Subsequently, they approached the Bombay High Court by filing Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1790 and 1844 of 2019. The High Court, while granting interim protection from time to time, finally dismissed the applications vide the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2025, though it extended interim protection for four weeks. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellants invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction by filing Special Leave Petitions, which were granted leave, leading to the present criminal appeals which were ultimately dismissed, affirming the High Court’s order.
READ ALSO:Central vs. State Green Authority: Supreme Court Settles the Jurisdiction Debate for Builders
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that while the allegations were largely based on documentary evidence and the implicated mutation entries had been cancelled long ago, the gravity of the accusations concerning the abuse of official position could not be ignored. The Court noted that the appellants, as public officials, had a duty to act diligently and that their actions in certifying the mutations based on facially invalid documents—including those executed by deceased persons—facilitated a fraudulent transaction. It held that establishing their criminal intent and complicity necessitated custodial interrogation, which outweived the arguments of delay and the absence of direct personal gain. The Court also made significant general observations, expressing strong disapproval of the inordinate delay by the High Court in deciding the anticipatory bail applications and issuing directives to all courts to ensure the expeditious disposal of bail matters to uphold the fundamental right to personal liberty.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court, thereby rejecting the appellants’ plea for anticipatory bail. The Court affirmed that custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the allegations of abuse of official position and to ascertain the appellants’ complicity in the fraudulent property transaction. However, the Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and for the limited purpose of deciding the bail plea, and would not influence the trial. It explicitly granted the appellants liberty to apply for regular bail before the competent court, which must be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by the findings in this order.
Case Details:
Case Title: Anna Waman Bhalerao Versus State of Maharashtra CITATION: (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11128 of 2025) CRIMINAL/Civil APPEAL No: Criminal Appeal No. 4004 of 2025 Date Of Judgement: September 12, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here