Bombay High Court

RUPESH RAMSAJIVANLAL SONIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Decided: 31 July 2026
Disposal: Allowed To be withdrawn
Bench: PRAFULLA S KHUBALKAR

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail is warranted where the dispute is civil in nature, the parties have compromised, and the complainant does not oppose bail.

Summary

Rupesh Ramsajivanlal Soni applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a criminal case (Crime No. 639 of 2026) registered under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant argued that the dispute was essentially civil and that the parties had executed a compromise agreement on 28 July 2026, with the complainant expressing no opposition to bail. The investigating officer concurred, stating that custody was unnecessary given the nature of the offence and the compromise. The court examined the consent terms and found no grievance from the complainant, concluding that custodial interrogation was not required. Consequently, the court ordered that, if arrested, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with a solvent surety, and the anticipatory bail application was allowed and disposed of.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for granting anticipatory bail in a case where the underlying dispute is civil and parties have reached a compromise.
Whether the existence of a compromise agreement negates the necessity for custodial interrogation and justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 316(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
civil compromise
Section 482
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
personal bond
custodial interrogation

Judgment

                                                     4-ABA-2060-2026.ODT




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
        ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2060 OF 2026
Rupesh Ramsajivanlal Soni                              …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Anr.                      …Respondents


Adv. Murtuza Nazmi a/w Adv. Farida Nazmi a/w Adv. Dilip H.
Shukla a/w Adv. Nilesh Jaiswal, for the Applicant.
Ms. Poonam P. Bhosale, A.P. P., for the Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole, for the Respondent No.2
PI Ashok Landge & PSI Ghanwat, Park Site Police Station,
Mumbai, is present.


                      CORAM :       PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                      DATE     :    31ST JULY 2026
P.C:-

1.      Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP for

respondent – State and learned counsel for respondent no.2 /

complainant.


2.      The applicant has filed instant application under Section

482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for

seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 639 of 2026 dated

06.07.2026,     registered   with      Park   Site   Police    Station,




                              Page 1 of 3
                             31st July 2026
                                                4-ABA-2060-2026.ODT




Brihanmumbai, under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.


3.    Learned counsel for applicant submits that the dispute is

primarily civil in nature and the complainant and the

applicant/accused have compromised the dispute by consent

terms executed on 28th July 2026. Learned counsel for applicant

states that in view of the readiness of the applicant to make the

payments in accordance with the consent terms, the respondent

no.2 has no opposition for the prayer of anticipatory bail, as

recorded in para-7 of the consent terms. The copy of the original

consent terms is placed on record and same is taken on record

and marked as ‘X’ for identification purpose.


4.    In this regard, on instructions from the Investigating

Officer, learned APP also states that considering the nature of

offence and the fact that the parties have entered into

compromise as recorded in the consent terms, the custody of

this applicant is not required at this stage.


5.    In view of the fact that, the parties have compromised the

dispute and the complainant has no grievance for grant of




                              Page 2 of 3
                             31st July 2026
                                                       4-ABA-2060-2026.ODT




anticipatory bail, and further considering the nature of

transactions to be principally civil in nature, at this stage, the

custodial interrogation of this applicant does not appear to be

necessary. Hence, anticipatory bail application needs to be

allowed.


6.          Hence, in the event of arrest of this applicant in the said

offence, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P. R.

Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with

one solvent surety in the like amount.


7.          In view of this, the instant Anticipatory Bail Application is

allowed and disposed of.




                                         (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-




                                   Page 3 of 3
                                 31st July 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…