21 July 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has overturned the anticipatory bail granted to a man and other co-accused involved in a case of alleged forcible possession and vandalism of a hotel owned by his estranged wife. The Apex Court underscored that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy, not to be granted routinely, particularly in cases involving grave allegations and concealment of material facts.

The case originated from an appeal filed by the complainant-victim challenging the order dated June 19, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The High Court had granted pre-arrest bail to the husband, Vishwajeet Vinaykrao Jadhav, and others, in connection with Crime No. I-103 of 2023 registered at Deccan Police Station, Pune.

Background of the Dispute:

The complainant-victim accused her husband and co-accused of attempting to forcibly take possession of "Hotel Vaishali," a property she inherited from her father. After their marriage in 2018, matrimonial disputes arose, during which the husband allegedly procured a power of attorney and a gift deed for the hotel in his name. The wife had previously filed an FIR (No. 119 of 2023) against him for these actions.

Subsequently, the husband obtained an interim ex parte injunction in a civil suit, which he then allegedly used to trespass into the hotel premises with companions. They reportedly caused extensive damage, including disconnecting CCTV systems and vandalizing interiors, leading to a new FIR (Crime No. I-103 of 2023) against them under various IPC sections, including those related to trespass, damage, and criminal intimidation.

High Court's Error and Supreme Court's Intervention:

The accused's application for pre-arrest bail was initially rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, who noted that the husband had concealed the crucial fact that the ex parte injunction order, on which he relied, had been set aside by the District Court in an appeal filed by the wife. Despite this, the High Court proceeded to grant anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had "clearly erred" in granting anticipatory bail, overlooking critical aspects such as the nature and gravity of the allegations, the need for custodial investigation, and the criminal antecedents of the accused. The Court highlighted that the accused-husband's attempt to mislead the court by concealing the overturned injunction order was a significant factor.

Furthermore, the State of Maharashtra supported the complainant's plea for bail cancellation, citing that the husband had not cooperated with the investigation and had violated bail conditions by threatening an employee of the hotel. The State also pointed out that the husband faced four other criminal cases, including allegations of misusing power of attorney, securing a loan of Rs. 5 crores by mortgaging the hotel with duplicate documents, and other instances of threatening employees.

Conclusion:

Citing its own judgments emphasizing the extraordinary nature of anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court ruled that the present case did not warrant such indulgence due to the gravity of the allegations and the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses.

Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's order, cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to all private respondents. The accused have been directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, with the liberty to apply for regular bail, which will be considered as per law, subject to the Investigating Officer's right to seek police custody.

  Indian Penal Code, 1860