Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

JAY AVANI BRAHMBHATTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

Bail was granted on the basis of an amicable settlement and the applicant's compliance with restitution obligations.

Summary

The applicant, Jay Avani Brahmbhatt, was arrested on allegations of misappropriating money from the complainant in a matrimonial dispute. The parties reached an amicable settlement, with the applicant and his mother returning Rs.25,00,000 and agreeing to pay the remaining Rs.42,00,000. Both the State counsel and the respondent's counsel did not object to bail, noting the settlement and the applicant's willingness to comply. The court considered the settlement, the partial restitution, and the lack of objection as sufficient grounds to grant bail. Accordingly, the applicant was released on bail with a cash bond of Rs.25,000 and conditions to appear before police and not tamper with evidence.

Issues considered

  • The appropriateness of granting bail when the parties have amicably settled the dispute and partial restitution has been made
  • Whether the pending payment of Rs.42,00,000 affects the grant of bail

Subjects

  • bail
  • amicable settlement
  • anticipatory bail
  • criminal procedure
  • restitution
  • court order

Judgment

          Digitally
          signed by                                                  504-BA-2251-2026.doc
          RUPALI
RUPALI    RAJESH
RAJESH    WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
          2026.05.22
          20:48:16        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          +0530

                                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2251 OF 2026

                  Jay Avani Brahmbhatt                          ...Applicant
                       Versus
                  The State of Maharashtra & Anr.               ...Respondents

                  Mr. Deepak Thakre i/b Mr. Vedang Kulkarni for the Applicant.

                  Mr. M.S.Sonawane, A.P.P for the Respondent-State.

                  Mr. Marmik Shah for the Respondent No.2.

                  PI – Mr. Ghag attached to Malad Police Station, present.

                                        CORAM : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.
                                        DATE : 22nd MAY, 2026
                                               (VACATION COURT)

                 P.C. :

                  1.          Both the parties have agreed that the matter has been

                  amicably settled between them. In light of the amicable settlement of

                  the parties, the learned Counsel appearing for the first informant /

                  respondent No.2 fairly states that he has no objection if, the

                  application is allowed.


                  2.          Learned APP Mr. Sonawane also does not dispute this

   Wakodikar                                                                          1/4
                                                                504-BA-2251-2026.doc


            position that the matter was amicably settled by the parties as is

            reflected in the order passed in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.

            1364 of 2026 and 1362 of 2026.


            3.         I have perused the copy of the FIR. The allegations against

            the present applicant is that the applicant and the complainant were to

            get married.   The complainant had alleged that the applicant had

            usurped fair amount of money from the complainant and that he has

            not repaid the same. It is alleged that the applicant and his family has

            caused huge financial loss to the complainant.


            4.         The applicant was arrested on 25 th April, 2026. He is in

            jail since then.   At the time of hearing of the anticipatory bail

            application bearing No. ABA/1364/2026 and ABA/1362/2026 of the

            mother and brother of the applicant, it was decided that the matter

            would be amicably settled and the amount would be returned back to

            the complainant.    Infact, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- has already

            been returned by the applicant and his mother back to the

            complainant. An amount of Rs.42,00,000/- remains to be paid.


Wakodikar                                                                        2/4
                                                               504-BA-2251-2026.doc




            5.          One of the main consideration for granting of bail is that

            the matter has been amicably settled between the parties on the

            representation of the applicant.


            6.          In light of the understanding recorded and taking into

            consideration that the amount of Rs.42,00,000/- is to be paid by the

            applicant to the complainant and further taking into consideration the

            fact that the parties have amicably settled the matter, further custody

            of the applicant is not required.     Hence, the following order is

            passed :

                                         ORDER

                        i)         The applicant Jay Avani Brahmbhatt be
                       enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.
                       25,000/- each with one or two local sureties in the like
                       amount;

                       ii)         Pending the furnishing of sureties, the
                       applicant be released on temporary cash bail in the sum of
                       Rs.25,000/-;

                       iii)         The applicant shall attend the concerned Police
                       Station as and when called for;


Wakodikar                                                                       3/4
                                                              504-BA-2251-2026.doc




                      iii)        The applicant shall keep the Trial Court
                      informed of his current addresses and mobile contact
                      numbers and/or change of residence or mobile details, if
                      any, from time to time;


                     iv)           The applicant shall not tamper with any
                     evidence/s, influence the witness/s concerned with the case,
                     during the said period.

            7.        Bail Application is accordingly disposed of on the

            aforesaid terms.



                                                   SANDESH D. PATIL, J.




Wakodikar                                                                      4/4


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.