I have perused the first information report. Prima-facie,
the dispute between the parties appears to be of a civil nature.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. {Para 9}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3087 OF 2025
Shantadevi Mafatlal Purohit and Ors V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Mr. Bipul Maity Advocate for the Applicants.
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent/State.
Mr. Sunil R. Pandey i/b Adv. Raju M., Advocate for the first
informant.
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 06.02.2026.
1. This is an application for Anticipatory Bail.
2. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime
No. 158 of 2025 registered at MRA Marg Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) 351(2) & 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the first informant
is involved in the business of selling Chinese toys. The first
informant was acquainted with the husband of the applicant No.1,
who is co-accused in the present crime and was involved in the
same business. It is alleged that from 25.11.2024 to 29.11.2024,
the first informant provided goods worth Rs.75 lakhs to the
applicants and co-accused on the assurance that they will sell the
said goods at a profitable price for the first informant. It is alleged
that the applicants and co-accused sold the said goods and only
paid Rs.15 lakhs to the first informant and refused to pay the
remaining amount as well as threatened him with dire
consequences. The allegations against the present applicants and
other co-accused are thus of defrauding the first informant to the
tune of Rs.60,00,000/-.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the
learned APP for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for
the first informant.
5. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that
entire family is made the accused. It is submitted that though the
crime does not fall in the category of heinous crimes, the FIR is
registered against applicant No.2, who is a juvenile. It is submitted
that the dispute, if any, is of a civil nature and there is no need of
custodial interrogation.
6. On the other hand, the learned APP for the respondent-
State and the learned counsel for the first informant submit that
the applicants are involved in a serious offence of cheating. It is
submitted that considering the nature of crime, the applicants
may not be released on anticipatory bail.
7. On 20.11.2025 this Court passed the following order :
1. This is an Application for anticipatory bail.
2. The Applicants are apprehending their arrest
in Crime No.158 of 2025 registered with M.R.A.
Marg Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants
submits that FIR is registered even against
Applicant No.2, who is a minor. It is submitted
that Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016
prohibits registration of FIR against the child in
conflict with law, except for heinous offences.
4. It appears from the record that before
registration of FIR, approval of Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Mumbai was
sought. It appears that the concerned DCP has
accorded the approval for registration of the FIR
very mechanically ignoring the opinion of
Assistant Commissioner of Police that dispute
between the parties is of civil in nature. The said
opinion of ACP reads thus:
{Vernaculars omitted}
5. The concerned DCP therefore shall file an
Affidavit explaining in which circumstances FIR
came to be registered against the Applicant
No.2, who is a minor and what made him to
discard the opinion of Assistant Commissioner of
Police. Such Affidavit shall be filed within a
period of two weeks from today.
6. List the present Application on 04th
December 2025.
7. Ad interim order, if any, passed earlier to
continue till the next date.
8. In the affidavit filed by the concerned Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, Mumbai, there is no explanation
as to why the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner of Police was
discarded.
9. I have perused the first information report. Prima-facie,
the dispute between the parties appears to be of a civil nature.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail. In the result,
the following order is passed :
O R D E R
a) The Application is allowed.
b) In the event of arrest of the applicants in
connection with Crime No. 158 of 2025 registered
at MRA Marg Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) 351(2) &
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the
applicants be released on bail on furnishing P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one or
two sureties in the like amount.
[N.R.BORKAR, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment