Bombay High Court
DIGVIJAY SUBHASH MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the FIR pertains to a civil dispute, custodial interrogation is unnecessary, and therefore anticipatory bail is warranted under Section 482.
Summary
The applicant, Digvijay Subhash More, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in a case (Crime No. 37 of 2025) involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust over a banana supply transaction. The court observed that the FIR essentially described a civil contractual dispute concerning payment for agricultural produce, and therefore custodial interrogation was not necessary. Both the State’s counsel and the respondent’s counsel agreed that the amount of Rs.2,78,000 deposited by the applicant in the court could be released to the respondent. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs.50,000, several reporting conditions, and directed the payment of the deposited amount to the respondent. The application was disposed by allowing the bail.
Issues considered
- The applicability of anticipatory bail under Section 482 when the FIR stems from a civil contractual dispute
- Whether custodial interrogation is necessary in a case involving alleged cheating over a commercial transaction
- Whether the court can direct the release of money deposited by the applicant to the respondent
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 34, 406, 409, 420, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- civil contractual dispute
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- custodial interrogation
- personal bond
Judgment
934-ABA-531-2025 (CR).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 531 OF 2025
Digvijay Subhash More … Applicant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Mr. Ranjit H. Patil i/b. Ms. Saili Dhuru for the Applicant.
Mr. S.H. Yadav, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Abid Mulani (Through V.C.) a/w. Ms. Supriya Koli & Ms. Bhagyashri
Mangale for the Respondent No.2.
Officer : PC/483 Mr. Somnath N. Gavade, Karmala Police Station, present.
-------
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 2nd September 2026.
PER COURT :
1. Heard, Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. Yadav,
learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State and Mr. Mulani, learned
Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
2. By the present Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail,
apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 37 of 2025, dated 20th
osk 1 of 5
934-ABA-531-2025 (CR).docx
January 2025, registered with Karmala Police Station, District Solapur Rural,
for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 420, 409, 406 read with
Section 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the
subject matter of Crime No. 37 of 2025 is a transaction involving the supply
of bananas between the Applicant and the Respondent No. 2. He submits that
the Applicant and the Respondent No. 2 have been in this business for about
5 to 6 years. He submits that there is a dispute regarding payment for
agricultural produce supplied by the Respondent No. 2 and purchased by the
Applicant. He submits that this is a pure civil contractual dispute between the
Applicant and the Respondent No. 2. He submits that the Respondent No. 2
has given a criminal flavour to a pure civil dispute.
4. Mr. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State, submits that
the Respondent No.2 has claimed that despite having supplied bananas to the
Applicant, the Applicant has not paid the entire amount and therefore the
offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust are made out.
5. Mr. Abid Mulani, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2, submits
that the Applicant, despite having received the entire bananas as ordered, has
failed and neglected to fulfil his obligation to pay the amount towards the
bananas. He submits that the Applicant's act and conduct in receiving the
osk 2 of 5
934-ABA-531-2025 (CR).docx
bananas and not paying the same amount constitute cheating.
6. Mr. Abid Mulani further submits that the custodial interrogation of the
Applicant is necessary to trace the money trail in respect of the bananas,
which, according to Mr. Mulani, the Applicant has sold and received payment
for.
7. Perused the record.
8. A perusal of the F.I.R. prima facie indicates that the subject matter of
the F.I.R. is a contractual dispute regarding the purchase and sale of
agricultural produce and a dispute over payments. Thus, the transaction
referred to in Crime No. 37 of 2025 appears to be a pure civil transaction
pertaining to the recovery of money due to Respondent No. 2.
9. Considering the above facts, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is
not necessary.
10. At this stage, Mr. Abid Mulani, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No.2, states that the Applicant has deposited Rs.2,78,000/- in this Court
pursuant to the order dated 6 th March 2025. He submits that this amount is
part of the amount due and payable by the Applicant to Respondent No.2,
therefore, Respondent No.2 is entitled to the same. He further states that the
Applicant is liable to pay a total of Rs.7,28,000/. Mr. Mulani further states
osk 3 of 5
934-ABA-531-2025 (CR).docx
that the amount of Rs.2,78,000/- would be adjusted against the total dues
payable by the Applicant and therefore seeks a direction for payment of the
said amount to Respondent No.2.
11. Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on instructions,
states that the amount of Rs.2,78,000/- deposited by the Applicant in the
Registry of this Court be paid to Respondent No.2. Mr. Ranjit Patil gives his
no-objection to the Applicant withdrawing the said amount deposited in this
Court.
12. Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State, also does not
oppose payment of Rs.2,78,000/- to Respondent No.2.
13. In view of the above, this Application is allowed in the following
terms :
(a) In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in Crime No. 37 of
2025, dated 20th January 2025, registered with Karmala Police
Station, District Solapur Rural, the Applicant shall be released
on bail upon furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only), with one or two sureties in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer, Karmala Police
Station, District Solapur Rural.
(b) The Applicant shall appear and report to the Investigating
Officer, Karmala Police Station, District Solapur Rural, on
07/09/2026, 08/09/2026, 09/09/2026 & 10/09/2026, from
osk 4 of 5
934-ABA-531-2025 (CR).docx
10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and thereafter as and when required
by the Investigating Officer. Applicant shall cooperate in the
investigation of Crime No. 37 of 2025.
(c) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person/s acquainted with
the facts of the case to dissuade such person/s from disclosing
the facts to the Court or any police officer.
(d) The Applicant shall not tamper with evidence in any manner.
(e) The Applicant shall provide the Investigating Officer with his
residential address along with proof, his contact numbers, email
and must inform the Investigating Officer of any changes to this
information from time to time.
(f) In view of the statement made by Mr. Ranjit Patil, learned
Advocate for the Applicant, the amount of Rs.2,78,000/-
deposited in this Court along with accrued interest, if any, be
paid to the Respondent No.2, on an application and proof of
identity of the Respondent No.2 being filed in the Registry.
14. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 531 of 2025 is disposed.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.09.03
20:58:55
+0530
osk 5 of 5
Checking your session…