Dr Shweta Dilip Yadav vs Chandrakaladevi Faujdar Yadav — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

Dr Shweta Dilip Yadav vs Chandrakaladevi Faujdar Yadav — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the anticipatory bail earlier granted to the accused respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai (order dated 8 November 2024) should be cancelled. +1 more

Court's answer

Cancellation of bail already granted must be distinguished from an initial refusal of bail: bail, once granted, protects personal liberty and its cancellation cannot be ordered routinely or mechanically. Revocation must rest on compelling and cogent reasons — such as the accused interfering with the due course of justice, attempting to abscond, intimidating or influencing witnesses, or misusing the liberty granted — and the Court must be satisfied on credible material that the accused poses a real and imminent threat to the integrity of the judicial process or is likely to flee from justice.

Ratio / Principle

On the facts of this case: apart from the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, all other offences alleged against the accused respondents are bailable; there is no material on record indicating tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or obstruction of investigation or judicial proceedings; there is no allegation or indication of misuse of the earlier anticipatory-bail concession; the learned Additional Sessions Judge had extensively examined the relevant facts and legal considerations; and the investigation has concluded with the charge-sheet submitted.

Key takeaways

In the absence of any new, compelling grounds warranting cancellation of bail, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the order granting anticipatory bail; accordingly the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail is rejected.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction — Criminal Application No.54 of 2025 (Coram: R. N. Laddha, J.; decided 9 July 2025). The applicant sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Respondents 1–5 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai, on 8 November 2024, in connection with CR No.209 of 2024 of Manickpur Police Station (offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506, 500, 427 read with 34 IPC). The Court drew a clear distinction between cancellation of bail already granted and initial refusal: bail safeguards personal liberty, and revocation must rest on compelling, cogent reasons — interference with the due course of justice, likelihood of absconding, intimidation or influencing of witnesses, or misuse of the liberty — proved on credible material showing a real and imminent threat to the judicial process or a likelihood of fleeing justice. Finding that, apart from the charge under Section 406 IPC, all offences alleged were bailable; that no material showed tampering with evidence, influencing of witnesses or obstruction; that there was no allegation of misuse of the concession; that the Additional Sessions Judge had extensively examined the relevant considerations; and that the investigation was complete with the charge-sheet filed, the Court held there were no new compelling grounds and declined to interfere, rejecting the application. The applicant's counsel had relied on Dr Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Anita Agarwal, (2021) 15 SCC 777, on cancellability post charge-sheet; this Court did not make an independent pronouncement engaging that authority.

Digitally signed by CHITRA CHITRASANJAYSONAWANE SANJAYSONAWANEDate:2025.07.09 21:13:23 +0530

Chitra Sonawane 901-ii-APPLN-54-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Application No.54 of 2025

Dr Shweta Dilip Yadav Age : 30 yrs : Occ:Professional R/o.A-301, 3^rd floor, Rashmi Heights, near Vinayak Medical, near Fire Brigade, Nallasopara-Vasai Link Road, Nallasopara (E), Taluka Vasai, District Palghar

… Applicant.

Vs.

Chandrakaladevi Faujdar Yadav Age: 64 yrs, Occ-Housemaker

Faujdar Baijnath Yadav Age-66 yrs, occ : Retired

(Sr Nos.1 and 2 both residing at D-504, Shree Shakun Greens Pvt Ltd, HDIL Layout, Besides Vinay Unique Bldg, Virar (W), Tal-Vasai Dist.Palghar

Hawaldar Baijnath Yadav Age-47 yrs, Occ: Freelancer,

Mrs Manisha Hawaldar yadav Age: 46 yrs, Occ: Housemaker (Sr. Nos.3 and 4 residing at Samata Nagar, Galli No.8, Phanas Pada, Waliv, Vasai(E), Tal-Vasai, Palghar.

Page No. 1 of 5

9 July 2025

Chitra Sonawane 901-ii-APPLN-54-2025.doc

Rajendra Prasad Yadav Age:56 yrs, Occ-Agriculturist R/o Fatehpur, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh

The State of Maharashtra Manickpur police station, through PP High Court, Criminal Dept.

… Respondents.

Mr PB Shah i/by Ms Gunjan P Shah for the applicant in both the applications.

Mr Ashley Cusher for respondent No.1 in both the applications.

Mr SS Pednekar, APP for the respondent / State.

PSI Kiran Valvi, Manikpur police station ,Vasai(W).

Coram : R.N.Laddha, J. Date : 9 July 2025. P.C. :

Heard Mr PB Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and Mr SS Pednekar representing respondent/ State.

The applicant has preferred this application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused respondents, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Page No. 2 of 5 ____________________________________________ 9 July 2025

Chitra Sonawane 901-ii-APPLN-54-2025.doc

Vasai, by an order dated 8 November 2024, in connection with CR No.209 of 2024, registered at Manickpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506, 500 , 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The applicant’s contention is that the learned Judge failed to delve into substantive merits of the prosecution’s case. Relying on the decision in Dr Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs Anita Agarwal & Ors. (2021)15 SCC 777, the learned Counsel submits that even though the investigation has been concluded and a charge sheet has been filed, it remains legally permissible for a Court to entertain an application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail.

It is important to draw a clear distinction between the cancellation of bail already granted and the initial refusal of bail. Bail, once granted, is a measure to protect an individual’s fundamental right to personal liberty, and its cancellation should not be ordered in a routine or mechanical manner. Revocation of bail must be supported by compelling and cogent reasons, such as the accused interfering with the due course of justice, attempting to

Page No. 3 of 5 ____________________________________________ 9 July 2025

Chitra Sonawane 901-ii-APPLN-54-2025.doc

abscond, intimidating or influencing witnesses, or otherwise misusing the liberty granted under the bail. The Court must be satisfied, based on credible material, that the accused poses a real and imminent threat to the integrity of the judicial process or is likely to flee from justice.

In the present case, it is pertinent to note that apart from the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, all other offences alleged against the accused respondents are bailable in nature. There is no material on record to indicate that the accused respondents have attempted to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the investigation or judicial proceedings. Furthermore, there is no allegation or indication that the accused respondents have misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted earlier. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail, has extensively examined the relevant facts and legal considerations. Moreover, the investigation has concluded and the charge sheet has already been submitted to the Court. In the absence of any new, compelling grounds warranting cancellation of bail, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the order granting anticipatory

Page No. 4 of 5 ____________________________________________ 9 July 2025

Chitra Sonawane 901-ii-APPLN-54-2025.doc

bail.

Accordingly, and in view of the foregoing observations, the application for cancellation of anticipatory bail stands rejected.

[R. N. Laddha, J.]

Page No. 5 of 5

9 July 2025