Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. The State of Maharashtra
Background
The appellant, a woman who had inherited a hotel property from her late father, alleged that her estranged husband and his associates forcibly tried to take over the property using a power of attorney and gift deed she disputed, along with an ex parte civil injunction, and that they trespassed, vandalised the premises, and disabled its CCTV system. She filed an FIR against her husband and others, who then obtained anticipatory bail from the Bombay High Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had granted anticipatory bail without properly weighing the gravity of the allegations or the fact that the accused had misled the trial court by concealing that the ex parte injunction they relied on had already been set aside on appeal. It also noted the accused's criminal antecedents (highlighted by the State) and that the husband had threatened witnesses, violating his bail conditions. Concluding that this was a clear-cut attempt by an estranged husband to forcibly dispossess his wife of her inherited property, the Court held it was not a case warranting anticipatory bail, quashed the High Court's order, cancelled the bail, and directed the accused to surrender within two weeks, while leaving them free to seek regular bail thereafter.
Lesson Learnt
Anticipatory bail can be cancelled where the accused conceal material facts from the court or misuse the liberty (such as by threatening witnesses); courts are expected to scrutinise the gravity of allegations and need for custodial investigation rather than grant such bail mechanically.