Supreme Court quashed High Court order granting anticipatory bail in forcible dispossession case and directed surrender within two weeks

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals by special leave challenging a Bombay High Court order that had granted anticipatory (pre‑arrest) bail to several accused in an FIR alleging forcible dispossession, vandalism and related offences in respect of a hotel property. The appeals raised the question whether the High Court erred in extending the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail despite the gravity of allegations, alleged concealment of material facts and the need for custodial investigation.

The Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court order dated 19 December 2024 and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the private respondents. The bench held that anticipatory bail was an "extraordinary remedy" that "ought not to be granted in a routine manner" and that strong reasons must exist to extend such indulgence in cases of grave offences. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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... 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.” The Court noted that the High Court had "glossed over" the material fact that an ex‑parte injunction relied upon by one accused had been set aside, and emphasised that the accused “tried to mislead the Court by concealing the fact” and, further, that one accused had “flouted the conditions of anticipatory bail order.”

Background The dispute arose after the appellant‑complainant (proprietor by succession of the subject hotel) alleged that her estranged husband and others forcibly entered the hotel premises on 29 June 2023, damaged the interiors, disconnected CCTV/DVR wiring and attempted dispossession. The husband, accused Vishwajeet, had earlier procured a power of attorney and a gift deed purportedly in his favour and obtained an ex‑parte interim injunction in a civil suit; that injunction was later set aside on appeal. The complainant filed FIR No. 1‑103 of 2023 at Deccan Police Station, Pune, alleging offences including Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 387, 427, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. The accused sought anticipatory bail; a Sessions Court declined relief, noting concealment of the setting aside of the injunction, but the High Court granted pre‑arrest bail, prompting these appeals.

The State supported cancellation of anticipatory bail and filed a counter affidavit alleging misuse of bail conditions, threats to witnesses and multiple other criminal cases against the principal accused, including an FIR alleging misuse of power of attorney and forgery to secure a loan by mortgaging the hotel. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ignored the nature and gravity of allegations, the need for custodial investigation and the accuseds' antecedents. The Court found that the accused had attempted to "dispossess his own wife from her lawfully inherited property" and that custodial interrogation was necessary. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court order, directed that the accused surrender before the trial court within two weeks, and granted them liberty to apply for regular bail, subject to the Investigating Officer's right to seek custody or remand. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 878 Case Title: Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Counsel not specified in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Standing Counsel for the State (name not specified); other counsel not specified in the judgment