Bombay High Court
VICKY ANANDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- PRAFULLA S KHUBALKAR
Holding
The court held that, given the matrimonial nature of the dispute, the applicant’s cooperation and the existing interim protection order, anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC was warranted.
Summary
The husband filed an anticipatory bail application under section 438 of the CrPC in connection with FIR No. 642 of 2024 alleging offences including cruelty (498-A), assault (323), criminal breach of trust (420), forgery (468) and others. The wife alleged physical and mental cruelty, theft of golden ornaments and forgery of her signature to book a flat in the husband’s name. The husband contended that the allegations were baseless, the flat booking was cancelled, and he had cooperated with the investigation, also relying on an interim protection order dated 27 November 2024. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations but did not dispute the interim protection. The court observed that the dispute stemmed from matrimonial discord, the alleged forgery was linked to the marital quarrel, and the applicant had been under interim protection for over a year while cooperating with authorities. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim protection and granted anticipatory bail on condition of a personal bond and surety, directing the applicant to continue cooperating and not tamper with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under section 438 CrPC for the offences alleged in FIR No. 642 of 2024.
- Whether the existence of an interim protection order influences the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the nature of the allegations (cruelty, theft, forgery) warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 323, 34, 406, 420, 468, 498-A, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- section 438 CrPC
- IPC offences
- domestic violence
- cruelty
- forgery
- cooperation with investigation
- interim protection order
Judgment
24-ABA-2301-2024.doc
Harish
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2301 OF 2024
Vicky Anad ...Applicant
V/s.
State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
Ms. Neha Bhavsar, for the Applicant.
Mr. Bapu Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.
________________________________________________________
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 10TH JULY, 2026.
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Neha Bhavsar for the
applicant, as well as advocate Mr. Bapu Holambe Patil learned APP
for the State.
2. The applicant has filed the instant application under
section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for seeking
pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 642 of 2024
registered with Kasarvadvali Police Station, Thane, for the
1/6
24-ABA-2301-2024.doc
offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506, 420,
468 & 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicant is the husband of the
complainant/respondent no.2. The complainant has lodged a
report against the applicant alleging that after their marriage on
21st April, 2022 they were residing at Bangalore, and the
applicant has ill-treated her on account of several petty issues.
She alleged that due to the cruel treatment meted out by the
applicant, there was quarrel in between the parties and one
point of time, the police had intervened. She has alleged that the
applicant has physically and mentally harassed her and after
quarrel in between them on 20th March, 2024, the applicant has
taken away with him all the belongings of the informant
including golden ornaments. She has alleged that the applicant
has forged her signature for the purpose of booking a flat in his
own name and on account of these allegations, the report came
to be lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits
that the allegations about cruelty are without any basis. He would
2/6
24-ABA-2301-2024.doc
submit that the applicant has not taken away the golden
ornaments and there is no question of forgery of signature of the
complainant/wife. He submitted that the applicant and informant
had both booked a flat at Bangalore and after the quarrel in
between them the booking is also cancelled. As such, it is
submitted that the applicant has not committed any forgery or
any kind of cruelty upon the informant.
5. Apart from this, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that this Court has granted him interim protection by
order dated 27th November, 2024 and in accordance with the said
order, the applicant has co-operated with the investigating
agency. He therefore, submits that the interim protection be
confirmed.
6. Learned APP for the respondent opposed the
application and submitted that the wife has levelled allegations
about her missing golden ornaments and the applicant’s
involvement in the offence cannot be doubted. However, learned
APP does not dispute the contention that this applicant was
protected by order dated 27th November, 2024 and the
3/6
24-ABA-2301-2024.doc
contentions that the applicant has co-operated with the
investigating agency.
7. It has to be noted that the dispute in between the
complainant and the applicant arose on account of matrimonial
discord. The complainant/wife has made allegations about
cruelty with respect to the incidents which occurred on 24 th
March, 2024 and the FIR is lodged on 05th April, 2024. As regards
the allegations of forgery of signature of the wife, it appears that
the parties had decided to purchase a flat jointly and the booking
was initially in the names of both the parties. Although it is
alleged by the wife in the report that the husband was attempting
to cancel the wife’s name, it is revealed that ultimately the
booking of the flat was completely cancelled. In this background,
the allegations of forgery appeared to be introduced only on
account of her other allegations of cruelty. It appears that the
husband and wife were residing in the same house and the
allegations about missing of the golden ornaments is a matter of
investigation. Considering the nature of offence being based on
quarrels in between the husband and wife and further
4/6
24-ABA-2301-2024.doc
considering the fact that the applicant was protected by an
interim order passed by this Court since more than one year, i.e.
from 27th November, 2024, the interim protection granted by this
Court needs to be confirmed.
Hence, I pass following order:
::ORDER::
i] The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
ii] In the event of arrest of the Applicant in Crime
No. 642 of 2024 registered with Kasarvadvali
Police Station Thane for the offence
punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 406,
506, 420, 468 & 504 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code., he 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.
iii] The Applicant is directed to extend co-
operation during the investigation and trial.
5/6
24-ABA-2301-2024.doc
iv] The Applicant shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses or evidence.
8. In view of the above, the Anticipatory Bail Application
is allowed and disposed of.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
6/6
Checking your session…