Bombay High Court
V. MURUGANANTHAMversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted, subject to conditions, as the allegations are commercial in nature and no intention to deceive is established at this stage.
Summary
The applicant, V. Muruganantham, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre‑arrest bail in a case (Crime No. 1258 of 2025) registered for alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust under IPC Sections 420 and 409. The FIR alleged that the applicant failed to supply agricultural produce despite receiving a payment of Rs 1,69,87,850, a dispute that is also the subject of a pending civil suit (Commercial Suit No. 5745 of 2026). The respondent State opposed the bail, but the court noted that the allegations appear to be purely commercial and there was no evidence of an intention to deceive at the pleading stage. The court also considered that the applicant had already obtained a transit anticipatory bail order from the Madras High Court. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs 25,000, weekly police‑station attendance, and a prohibition on influencing witnesses, with breach of conditions leading to cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita when the alleged offence arises from a commercial dispute already pending before a civil court.
- Whether the existence of a prior transit anticipatory bail order from the Madras High Court affects the grant of bail in the present case.
- Whether the applicant’s alleged failure to supply goods constitutes an intention to deceive sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 409, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- commercial dispute
- civil suit
- Section 482
- IPC 409
- IPC 420
- witness tampering
- bail conditions
Judgment
904-ABA-2407-2026.ODT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2407 OF 2026
V. Muruganantham …Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Adv. Lokesh Zade i/b Adv. Asif Shaikh, for the Applicant.
Mr. Ashok S. Gawai, A.P. P., for the Respondent – State.
PI Vijay Garud (I.O.), Amboli Police Station, Mumbai, is present.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
DATE : 29TH AUGUST 2026
P. C:-
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned
APP for respondent-State.
2. The applicant has filed instant application under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking
pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 1258 of 2025 dated
31.12.2025, registered with Amboli Police Station,
Brihanmumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 409
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Learned counsel for applicant points out that the
allegations in the FIR clearly show that they are with respect to
Page 1 of 4
th
29 August 2026
904-ABA-2407-2026.ODT
the commercial transactions in between complainant and the
applicant. The offence came to be registered only on the
allegations that despite payment of an amount of
Rs. 1,69,87,850/-, certain agricultural products are not supplied
by the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in
fact the complainant had already filed civil suit bearing
Commercial Suit (Stamp) No. 5745 of 2026 before City Civil &
Sessions Court, Greater Bombay at Dindoshi, Mumbai. Apart
from this, he submits that the applicant has been protected by
way of an order dated 24th June 2026 passed by the High Court
of Madras granting transit anticipatory bail in connection with
this offence.
4. Learned APP for the respondent has opposed the
application and submitted that there are allegations about
payment of huge amount by the complainant to the applicant
against which goods are not supplied. He however does not
dispute the fact that a civil suit is already filed by the
complainant against this applicant with respect to the same
transactions.
Page 2 of 4
th
29 August 2026
904-ABA-2407-2026.ODT
5. The main allegations in the FIR are that despite payment
of amount by the complainant the applicant has failed to supply
the agricultural products. There is nothing on record to show at
this stage that the applicant has carried an intention to deceive
since beginning. Considering the nature of allegations and the
FIR, it appears that the offence is based on purely commercial
and civil transactions in between the parties, which fact also
becomes clear from pending civil suits filed by the complainant.
6. In view of this the presence of this applicant can be
secured by directing him to attend the police station and at this
stage, the personal liberty of this applicant needs to be
protected, subject to certain conditions.
7. 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. 1258 of 2025, registered with Amboli
Police Station, Brihanmumbai, for the offence
punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, he be released on
bail on furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with
Page 3 of 4
th
29 August 2026
904-ABA-2407-2026.ODT
one solvent surety of the like amount.
(iii) The applicant is directed to extend co-
operation and attend the Police Station on
every Monday for a period of three weeks in
between 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and
thereafter as and when called upon by the
investigating agency.
(iv) The applicant shall not influence any
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(v) Breach of any of these conditions, shall be a
ground for cancellation of the bail.
8. In above terms, the Anticipatory Bail Application is
allowed and disposed of.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-
Page 4 of 4
th
29 August 2026
Checking your session…