Bombay High Court

STATE OF GOA THR. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR/INVESTIGATION OFFICERversusAJAY GUPTA

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The High Court held that the bail order was vitiated by the grave nature of the offences, the respondent's direct involvement in forging the health NOC that led to the fatal fire, and the lower court's failure to consider material evidence, and therefore set aside the bail.

Summary

The State of Goa sought to quash a bail order granted by a Judicial Magistrate to Ajay Gupta, a partner in Being GS Hospitality LLP, after a deadly fire at the firm’s restaurant killed 25 people. The fire was linked to alleged forgery of a Health Department No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) that was used to obtain an excise licence, violating Sections 336, 338, 340 and others of the BNS 2023. The State argued that the forged NOC was a valuable security, that the respondent was directly involved in the conspiracy, and that his flight and potential evidence tampering warranted bail cancellation. The respondent contended he was a sleeping partner, not the maker of the forged document, and that bail should not be revoked absent a breach of conditions. The High Court held that the lower court failed to consider the gravity of the offences, the direct link between the forgery and the fatal fire, and the material evidence, and therefore set aside the bail order, directing the respondent to surrender.

Issues considered

Whether bail granted to the accused should be cancelled given the seriousness of the offences, including forgery of a health NOC and resulting deaths.
Whether the health NOC constitutes a valuable security under Section 338 of the BNS 2023, justifying denial of bail.
Whether the lower court erred by conducting a mini‑trial and ignoring material linking the accused to the forged document.
Whether the accused's flight, potential tampering of evidence, and risk of witness intimidation warrant bail revocation.
Whether the alleged forgery is causally connected to the fire incident, thereby affecting the bail decision.

Legislation cited

BNS, 2023 — s. 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 3(5)

Subjects

bail
forgery
fire safety
public safety
valuable security
Section 338 BNS 2023
revocation of bail
grave offences
evidence tampering
jurisdiction

Judgment

CRMAM-7-2026.odt

Jose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.7 OF 2026

State of Goa
Through Police Sub- Inspector/
Investigation Officer
At Mapusa Police Station. ... Applicant.
Versus
Ajay Gupta
S/ Ram Swaproop Gupta, aged 55
R/o 12A, Tatvarn Villa, Z Block, sector-48
South City —II, Gurugram
Haryana -122018. ... Respondent.

Ms Swati Kamat Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant.
Mr Madhav Khurana, Senior Advocate with Mr Rohan Dessai, Mr Malak
Bhatt (through VC), Ms Ashwini Bandekar, Mr Amit Badesra, Mr
Nishikant Raut Dessai, Mr Ashay Priolkar and Ms Arya Parrikar,
Advocates for the Respondent.

CORAM: DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
RESERVED ON: 29th July 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 18th August 2026

JUDGMENT:

1. By this application, the Applicant seeks to quash and set aside the

order dated 7th February 2026, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, ‘C’ Court, Mapusa-Goa (‘JMFC’), in Bail Application No. 258/2025/B,

whereby the JMFC enlarged the Respondent on bail subject to certain

conditions.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that 'Birch by Romeo Lane', a

restaurant-cum-club (‘the restaurant’) at Arpora Village, Bardez, Goa, was

Page 1 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

owned and operated by 'Being GS Hospitality LLP' ('the firm’). The

Respondent is a partner in the firm, along with Mr Gaurav Luthra and Mr

Saurabh Luthra. The restaurant is situated in the middle of a salt pan and

comprises a ground floor and a deck floor. The restaurant itself is on the deck

floor, while the kitchen is on the ground floor. The restaurant commenced

operations in February 2024.

3. On 6th December 2025, a fire broke out at the restaurant during a

dance event. It is alleged that cold pyro fireworks inside the restaurant caused

the fire. The restaurant's roof caught fire, and the flames rapidly spread

throughout the building. The roof and the interior deck floor were made of

wood, plastic, and dry grass. It is alleged that the restaurant had no fire safety

equipment and only one narrow entry and exit. Twenty-two men and three

women, comprising guests and staff of the restaurant, were unable to escape

and perished. Several others were injured. FIR No.154/2025, dated 7 th

December 2025, was registered at Anjuna Police Station.

4. During the investigation of the Anjuna FIR, it was revealed that the

Respondent, in connivance with his partners, forged a No Objection

Certificate (‘NOC’) purportedly issued by the Health Officer, Primary Health

Centre, Candolim. The certificate bore a printed digital signature of a Health

Officer. The NOC was submitted to the Excise Department, Mapusa, to obtain

the excise licence necessary to operate the restaurant/club. Upon

investigation, the Health Department confirmed that it had not issued any

such NOC to the Respondent, his partners, or the establishment. Further

Page 2 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

investigations revealed that the forged NOC was, in fact, issued to one Mrs

Esmeralda Silveira, the proprietor of a bar and restaurant at Calangute known

as ‘Sportsmen Tavern’, and bears the date 27 th January 2024. It is alleged that

the Respondent, in conspiracy with his partners, altered or manipulated this

NOC to represent it as an NOC issued to their establishment. Dr Roshan

Nazareth, Health Officer, Primary Health Centre, Candolim, made a complaint

dated 13th December 2025. Pursuant to this complaint, FIR No.154/2025,

dated 17th December 2025, for offences punishable under Sections 336(2),

336(3), 338, 340(2), 318(4) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS 2023, was

registered with Mapusa Police Station, North Goa. The Respondent is arrayed

as one of the main accused.

5. The Respondent was arrested on 23rd December 2025 and brought to

Goa on a transfer warrant from Delhi. He was remanded to judicial custody

on 3rd January 2026. The Respondent filed a bail application before the

JMFC. By order dated 7th February 2026, he was released on bail on certain

conditions. It is this order that is assailed by the Applicant-State.

6. Ms Swati Kamat Wagh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared

for the State and Mr Madhav Khurana, learned Senior Advocate, represented

the Respondent.

7. The grounds of challenge by the State are as under: -

i. The JMFC failed to appreciate that the health NOC constitutes

valuable security, and that Section 338 of the BNS provides for

Page 3 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term that

may extend to 10 years, and a fine.

ii. The JMFC erroneously held that Courts ordinarily and liberally

grant bail to persons alleged to have committed offences punishable

up to 7 years.

iii. The charge sheet was not filed at the time of grant of bail; however,

relevant documents were tendered before the Court. The original

forged NOC has not yet been recovered, and the Police are required

to confront the Respondent.

iv. The forgery was not a mere clerical error but a well-planned

conspiracy involving the fabrication of Government stamps and

signatures. The forged NOC directly contributed to the public safety

hazard that resulted in 25 deaths.

v. The Respondent is a resident of Haryana and an influential

businessman. He is likely to tamper with digital evidence and to

influence witnesses.

vi. The JMFC failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the material

placed before the Court, and the role of the accused in the crime.

vii. At the time of the hearing of the bail application, the JMFC

conducted a mini-trial and pronounced an order that the

Respondent was not the maker of the forged document.

Page 4 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

viii. The JMFC erred in holding that there was no material to implicate

the Respondent in the offence. The JMFC overlooked all the

material placed before it, which demonstrates the Respondent's

direct managerial and executive control over the commission of the

offence.

ix. The JMFC failed to consider that forging a Health Department NOC

undermines public trust in statutory certification systems. Only on

the ground that the NOC does not constitute a valuable security is

the Respondent enlarged on bail, without adverting to the fact that

all three partners were equally involved in procuring the forged

NOC.

x. It is also alleged that the construction of the restaurant itself was

unauthorised. The firm had taken the premises on a leave-and-

licence basis from the original owner, Mr Surendra Kumar Khosla.

The property, being situated in a salt pan, did not have a house

number. Accordingly, the leave and licence agreement did not

reflect a house number. Without a house number, the establishment

could not be awarded the requisite licences. Accordingly, another

copy of the licence agreement was prepared, inserting a house

number that belonged to another property owned by Mr Khosla.

Based on this borrowed house number, a trade licence was procured

from the Village Panchayat; the health NOC was forged with the

fictitious house number; and the Excise licence was procured based

Page 5 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

on forged documents. The restaurant was being operated based on

the aforesaid documents. The Applicant contends that the tragedy

occurred because the restaurant was operated in an unauthorised

construction, without valid licences, and that innocent and

unsuspecting guests and staff lost their lives. In this backdrop, the

JMFC failed to appreciate the gravity of the offence while enlarging

the Respondent on bail.

8. Ms Kamat submitted that the charge sheet was not on record at the

time of hearing the bail application. The charge sheet was filed on 30 th June

2026. However, all relevant documents collected and collated by the

Investigating Officer at that time were placed before the JMFC for

consideration. She brought to my notice the statement of the Complainant,

namely the Health Officer, whose signature appeared on the NOC; the

statement of the Excise Officer, who stated that the NOC from the Panchayat,

NOC from the Health Department, the owner of the premises, and the Police

verification, etc., were documents necessary to obtain the Excise licence. The

statements of Mr Ramdas Govekar, Guest Service Supervisor; Mahesh

Korgaonkar, Superintendent of Excise at the relevant time; Mohammed Abid

Aslam, Accountant for the restaurant; Pramod Naik, Officer at Excise

Commission; Shrikant Pednekar, Assistant Commissioner of Excise;

Madhumita Nayak, Notary; Ravi Verma, Supervisor; Rakesh Gupta, Director of

another resort at Assagao; Deepak Sharma, Beverage Manager; etc., were also

brought to my notice by Ms Kamat. According to Ms Kamat, all these

Page 6 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

statements clearly point to the complicity of the Respondent in the present

offence. She submitted that both the FIRs relating to the forgery and the fire

are connected, one leading to the other. The JMFC failed to appreciate the

gravity of the offence and the role of the Respondent in the offence while

enlarging him on bail.

9. Ms Kamat further submitted that the Respondent’s conduct in taking

flight immediately after the fire speaks for itself. He was untraceable after

leaving Goa. The Respondent also switched off his mobile phone and

communicated with his wife and others on his driver’s phone. The driver’s

statement is on record. This clearly indicates the Respondent’s intent to avoid

investigation. The JMFC failed to take these factors into account while

granting bail. The impugned order is perverse. Hence, Ms Kamat prayed that

the impugned order granting bail to the Respondent be set aside.

10. Ms Kamat relied on the following judgments:

i. Centrum Financial Services Ltd v. State (NCT of Delhi)1;
ii. Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka2;
iii. Kushal Singh @ Kushal Samrat v. State of Himachal Pradesh 3;
iv. Durgadas Tulsiram Sood v. State of Maharashtra4;
v. Ratanchand Radhakisondas v. State of Maharashtra5
vi. Ishwarlal Girdharilal Parekh v. State of Maharashtra and ors. 6

11. Mr Khurana, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, submitted

1 (2022) 13 SCC 286.
2 (2017) 5 SCC 406.
3 2026 SCC OnLine HP 964.
4 AIR 1955 Bom 82 : 1955 CRI. L. J. 289.
5 1959 SCC OnLine Bom 23.
6 1968 SCC OnLine SC 47.

Page 7 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

as follows:

i. The State has selectively sought cancellation of bail of the

Respondent. The Respondent is a sleeping partner holding only a

10% share in the firm; he had no role to play in the day-to-day

affairs of the restaurant.

ii. A Health NOC by itself does not create an indefeasible right to

obtain an Excise licence. Under the relevant Rules, grant of an

Excise licence is based on independent considerations.

iii. In response to Ms Kamat’s submission regarding the Respondent

fleeing to Delhi immediately after the fire, he said that the

Respondent was already suffering from a prior medical condition

for which he had to be admitted to the hospital. The Respondent

had no intent to run away.

iv. Nothing in the charge sheet remotely connects the Respondent with

the offence.

v. Mr Khurana also relied on various Supreme Court decisions to

buttress his argument that an accused cannot be punished by

refusing bail during the pendency of a trial.

vi. The Respondent has not violated any bail condition to date.

vii. No supervening circumstances warrant the order granting bail.

viii. Since the charge sheet has already been filed, there is no

Page 8 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

requirement for custodial interrogation. In these circumstances, he

has defended the impugned order.

12. He placed reliance on the following decisions:

i. Bhagirathsing v. State of Gujarat7;
ii. Kailash Kumar v. State of HP8;
iii. Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj9;
iv. Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State (NCT of Delhi)10
v. Santosh v. State of Maharashtra11

13. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is necessary to discuss the

law relating to the reversal of bail. In Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan

Bajirao Sonavane and Others12, the Supreme Court observed that an order

granting bail can be interfered with by the superior Court, considering the

nature and gravity of the offences and if the order granting bail ignores

relevant material on record or is based on extraneous considerations.

14. In Shabeen Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 13, the

Supreme Court, relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Ajwar v.

Waseem14, held as under:

“18. A superficial application of bail parameters not only
undermines the gravity of the offence itself but also risks
weakening public faith in the judiciary's resolve to combat the

7 (1984) 1 SCC 284.
8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3055.
9 (2018) 7 SCC 581.
10 (2019) 17 SCC 193.
11 (2017) 9 SCC 714.
12 2026 SCC OnLine SC 291 : 2026 INSC 181.
13 (2025) 4 SCC 172.
14 (2024) 10 SCC 768.

Page 9 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

menace of dowry deaths. It is this very perception of justice, both
within and outside the courtroom, that courts must safeguard, lest
we risk normalising a crime that continues to claim numerous
innocent lives. These observations regarding grant of bail in
grievous crimes were thoroughly dealt with by this Court in Ajwar
v. Waseem [Ajwar v. Waseem, (2024) 10 SCC 768 : (2025) 1 SCC
(Cri) 320] in the following paras : (SCC pp. 783-84, paras 26-28)

“26. While considering as to whether bail ought to be granted
in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court
must consider relevant factors like the nature of the
accusations made against the accused, the manner in which
the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of
the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal
antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of
the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are
released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being
unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of
obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice
and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail.
[Refer : Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. [Chaman Lal v. State of
U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1974]; Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977] ;
Masroor v. State of U.P. [Masroor v. State of U.P., (2009) 14
SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368] ; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar
v. Ashis Chatterjee [Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] ;
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.,
(2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] ; Anil Kumar
Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Anil Kumar Yadav v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 425]
; Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020)
2 SCC 118 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 558].

27. It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not
to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an
unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to
interference by the superior court. If there are serious
allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused
the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the
same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked
by a superior court if it transpires that the courts below have
ignored the relevant material available on record or not

Page 10 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the
society resulting in such an order……”

[Emphasis supplied]”

15. Also, the Supreme Court in the case of Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar &

Anr.15, while setting aside the order granting bail to a person accused of

committing grave offences, observed as follows:

“24. It is trite that bail once granted should not be cancelled
ordinarily, but where the facts are so grave that they shake the
conscience of the Court; and where the release of the accused on
bail would have an adverse impact on the society, the Courts are
not powerless and are expected to exercise jurisdiction conferred
by law to cancel such bail orders so as to subserve the ends of
justice. The present one is precisely a case of such nature.”

16. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present

case, I now proceed to examine whether the reasons assigned by the JMFC

can withstand judicial scrutiny.

17. The JMFC has assigned the following reasons for grant of bail to the

Respondent/Accused.

i. Apart from Section 338 of the BNS, all the offences invoked against

the Respondent carry a punishment only up to 7 years. Courts are

generally liberal in granting bail in offences punishable up to 7

years.

ii. The Prosecution has not produced any material to show that the

Respondent is the maker of the document. Whether the Respondent

is the maker of the document, based on his being a partner in the

15 2025 INSC 877.

Page 11 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

firm, shall be decided at trial. Hence, the Respondent is entitled to

bail.

iii. There is no connection between the fire offence registered at

Anjuna Police Station and the present offence. The Anjuna incident

occurred in December 2025, while the alleged forgery is from 2023-

2024. Hence, the offences are distinct. The present offence cannot

be said to be grave.

iv. There is no material/direct evidence to indicate that the

Respondent uploaded the documents necessary to obtain an Excise

licence, including the forged NOC.

v. The forged NOC is issued by the Health Department only from the

sanitary point of view to run a restaurant and has nothing to do

with the Excise licence.

vi. The offence does not involve a valuable security.

18. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the FIR registered at Anjuna

Police Station against the Respondent and his partners in the firm is directly

connected to the present FIR. The modus operandi employed by the

Respondent and his partners was to fabricate documents, including

appropriating a house number unrelated to the restaurant and representing it

as the restaurant's house number to procure a trade licence from the Village

Panchayat. This licence, in turn, was used to obtain other licences necessary to

operate the restaurant and sell alcohol to guests. The Health NOC had to be

Page 12 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

forged, as, without a genuine house number, the Department would not have

issued it. To believe and hold that this NOC is only required from a sanitary

point of view to run a restaurant is sheer simplicity on the part of the JMFC.

19. The NOC is crucial for obtaining the Excise licence required to sell

liquor. Additionally, an NOC from the Village Panchayat, along with police

verification, is required for the licence. The concerned department has not

issued any fire clearance. The health NOC is a key document that initiates the

process for obtaining further licences to operate the establishment. Operating

a club or restaurant without proper licences, selling liquor without approval,

ignoring construction norms, lacking adequate entry and exit points for

guests, and using firecrackers inside the restaurant and on the deck posed

significant safety risks. Without valid licences, the operations were legally and

safety-wise compromised. The fire incident, which left 25 people dead and

many others injured, is a direct result of the alleged offence. Prima facie, this

act can be said to have been done with the knowledge that it was likely to

injure and harm guests and others in the restaurant. This FIR is thus directly

connected with the FIR relating to the fire incident.

20. The JMFC has brushed off this direct connection only based on the

dates on which these two offences were alleged to have been committed. The

JMFC holds that since the fire incident took place in December 2025 and the

forgery allegedly took place in 2023-2024, there is no connection between

them and they are distinct. The JMFC overlooked the fact that the forgery

came to light during the investigation of the fire incident, thereby establishing

Page 13 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

a clear causal connection between the offences. The offence may appear

innocuous at first blush, but when connected to the fire incident, its gravity

cannot be undermined. The JMFC’s observation that the two FIRs are distinct

and not connected is incorrect.

21. The JMFC’s finding that there is no material indicating the Respondent

as the maker of the NOC is also flawed. There are numerous documents on

record establishing the Respondent’s complicity. The statement of Mr Ramdas

Govekar, the Guest Service Supervisor at one of the hotels in Goa, recorded by

the Police, directly links the Respondent to preparing documents to start the

restaurant. He stated that during 2017-2018 he became acquainted with Mr

Surendra Khosla, the owner of Maizons Lake View Hotel. Mr Khosla leased

the premises to the Respondent herein. The Respondent approached Mr

Govekar to assist in procuring a trade licence. The entire house number fiasco

was discussed and was within the Respondent's knowledge. Mr Govekar also

stated that there was a WhatsApp group titled ‘FSSAI Registration Arpora’.

This group comprised the Respondent, his partners and others involved in the

documentation process. The group reflects discussions on how the

documentation was to be prepared.

22. The statement of Mr Mohammed Abid Islam, who works for a food

studio partnership firm also owned by the Respondent’s partners, corroborates

Mr Govekar’s statement. Mr Islam also stated that the Respondent used to

follow up with him and others regarding documentation. The application

form for the wholesale/retail sale of liquor also lists the Respondent as one of

Page 14 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

the partners of the firm for which the licence was being applied for. A

document also indicates that the Police verification submitted by the

Respondent was not genuine, as the Delhi Police have clearly stated they did

not conduct any verfication.

23. Ms Kamat submitted that although the charge sheet was not filed at the

time of hearing the bail application, the relevant documents were placed

before the JMFC for consideration. Given that these documents clearly

indicate the Respondent's role in the present offence, the JMFC's observation

that there is nothing linking the Respondent to the offence cannot be

sustained. The JMFC's further finding that this is to be tested during trial is

also faulty. While considering a bail application, the Court must not conduct a

mini-trial; it ought to have adhered to the settled parameters in such cases.

24. The JMFC's observations are contradictory. On the one hand, the JMFC

holds that whether the Respondent can be said to be the maker of the forged

document, based on his being a partner in the firm, is to be tested during the

trial. However, the JMFC proceeds to conduct a mini trial at the bail

application stage to determine that no offence as alleged is made out, since

the forged document is not a valuable security. In this regard, the JMFC's

observations are infirm.

25. The further observation of the JMFC that Courts are generally liberal in

granting bail in offences punishable up to 7 years is also unfounded. There is

no concept of being liberal or otherwise while dealing with a bail application.

The considerations and principles for the grant of bail or otherwise are well-

Page 15 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

settled. No doubt that the court has discretion to decide a bail matter.

However, the discretion to grant bail, though wide, is structured by well-

settled legal principles and is neither uncanalised nor unfettered.

26. In Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vithal Damuji Meher 16, the Supreme Court

comprehensively restated the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to grant

bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to

the accused, criminal antecedents, the likelihood of tampering with evidence

or witnesses, the risk of absconding, and the overall impact on society.

27. A plain reading of the impugned order reveals a total absence of

discussion on the nature and gravity of the accusation, the likelihood of

tampering with evidence or witnesses, and the overall impact on society. It is a

matter of record that the Respondent fled to Delhi immediately upon learning

of the fire at the firm’s restaurant. The Fire Department personnel, other

authorities, and locals were engaged in rescuing people trapped inside the

restaurant. At this crucial period, the Respondent travelled back home and got

himself admitted to a hospital. The Police’s efforts to trace his whereabouts

were thwarted because the Respondent switched off his mobile phone and

communicated through his driver’s mobile. The driver’s statement is on

record. This conduct itself speaks to the Respondent’s intent.

28. Many witnesses in the case are employees, hirelings, staff, agents, etc.,

of the Respondent and his partners. The allegation against the accused itself is

a forgery, which clearly demonstrates the Respondent's propensity to tamper

16 (2024) 10 SCC 753.

Page 16 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

with evidence. Most importantly, 25 innocent people, including guests, staff,

etc., oblivious to the hazards of the unauthorised structure, perished in the

fire; the owners/proprietors of the restaurant, unwilling to take

accountability, indulging in flight and avoiding investigation, are factors that

require serious consideration while assessing the correctness of the order. This

is to be tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary

exercise of discretion in granting bail. The test is whether the order is

perverse, illegal, or unjustified. Considering the overwhelming circumstances,

I am of the view that the order suffers from serious infirmity and is susceptible

to interference by this Court.

29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 7 th February 2026

granting bail to the Respondent is set aside. The Respondent is directed to

surrender before the learned JMFC within a period of two weeks from the

date of uploading of this order.

30. It is made clear that the observations made in the present order are

confined to the bail order impugned herein. Since the charge sheet was filed

after the Respondent was released on bail, the Respondent is at liberty to seek

bail by making a fresh application before the Trial Court and the Trial Court

shall decide the same, on its own merits and totally uninfluenced by the

observations made in the present order.

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

Page 17 of 18
18th August 2026
CRMAM-7-2026.odt

31. After the Judgment and Order was pronounced, Mr Shreyansh Chopra,

learned counsel for the Respondent, sought a stay of this Judgment and Order

for a period of two weeks from today. However, considering the findings in the

present Judgment and Order and since I have already permitted and granted

liberty to the Respondent to make a fresh bail application before the Trial

Court, I am not inclined to stay the present Judgment and Order. The prayer

is declined.

32. If a fresh bail application is made before the Trial Court, the same be

heard and decided expeditiously and preferably within two weeks from the

date on which the bail application is made.

(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)

Andreza ereira Digitally signed by Andreza ereira
Date: 2026.08.18 19:19:36 +05'30'

Page 18 of 18
18th August 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…