Chetan Kantilal Sabadra vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Chetan Kantilal Sabadra vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by confirming the interim relief; pending criminal application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant, Chetan Kantilal Sabadra, in connection with Crime No. 418 of Jawaharnagar Police Station for offences punishable under Ss. 75, 78, 356-2, 351-2 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Ss. 67, 67-A Information and Technology Act. +1 more

Court's answer

Prima facie perusal of the investigation papers does not indicate that the applicant sent any defamatory message on any WhatsApp group, and there is nothing on record that any obscene photograph or video was made viral by the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Because the earlier FIR lodged with Pundlik Nagar Police Station (lodged 25-10-2025) did not mention the alleged incidents of 21st and 22nd October 2025, doubt is created about the present FIR.

Key takeaways

The applicant's mobile phone having already been seized pursuant to the interim order of this Court, custodial interrogation is not necessary and the applicant is not likely to flee from justice.ratio¶5
The anticipatory bail application is allowed by confirming the interim relief, and pending criminal applications are disposed of.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail — granted. Offences: Ss. 75, 78, 356-2, 351-2, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Ss. 67, 67-A, Information and Technology Act; Crime No. 418, Jawaharnagar Police Station, FIR dated 15-11-2025. Investigation papers disclosed no defamatory message by the applicant on any WhatsApp group and nothing to show any obscene photograph/video was made viral by him; the earlier FIR No. 437 of 2025 (lodged 25-10-2025 with Pundlik Nagar Police Station) omitted the alleged incidents of 21-22 October 2025, casting doubt on the present FIR, which surfaced after a cheque-dishonour dispute and notice dated 06-10-2025. The applicant's mobile phone stood seized under the interim order; custodial interrogation held unnecessary and no flight risk; interim anticipatory bail relief confirmed and pending criminal application disposed of. (R.M. Joshi, J.; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, 09-06-2026.)

2026:BHC-AUG:22613

{1}

912 sr.no.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2110 OF 2025

Chetan Kantilal Sabadra

….Applicant

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra

…..Respondent

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Syed G R, Md. Asimuddin APP for Respondents: Mr. N.R. Dayma

Advocate for applicant in Criminal Application NO. 4811 of 2025 : Mr. Jitendra S. Jain.

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4811 OF 2025 IN ABA/2110/2025

CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.

DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2026.

P.C. :-

The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 418, registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 75, 78, 356-2, 351-2 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 67 and 67A of the Information and Technology Act.

The FIR in question, came to be lodged on 15^th November, 2025 contending that the informant and the applicant got acquainted with each other. The informant states that the friendship of the informant the applicant turned into love relationship. She claims that the informant used to insist her for obtaining divorce from her husband. She further claims that at his insistence, she lodged report against her

{2}

912 sr.no.odt

husband and in-laws at Pundlik Nagar Police Station. She further alleged that the applicant sent obscene photos and videos of the applicant and informant to her father in law. He also threatened her. On the basis of this information, the offence in question came to be registered.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that prior to the present FIR, one more crime was registered by the informant vide FIR No. 437 of 2025, registered with Pundlik Nagar Police station. It is his submission that the report was lodged on 25^th October, 2025, however, inspite of the same, there is no reference about the occurrence of the alleged incident on 21.10.2025 and 22.10.2025. It is further his submission that there is a dispute between the applicant and the informant with regard to the dis-honour of the cheque and it is only after issuance of notice dated 6^th October, 2025, a false report came to be filed. He further submits that except for the complaints lodged by the present informant, there are no other offences registered against the applicant.

The learned APP and the learned counsel for the informant opposed grant of any relief to the applicant. It is their contention that from the FIR, it can be seen that the applicant has committed offence. It is argued on behalf of the prosecution that the applicant has sent the photograpohs of the applicant and informant to the father in law of the informant, and which shows his malafide intention. It is further submitted that messages were sent on Whatsapp group, whereby, the informant is defamed.

Prima facie perusal of the investigation papers do not indicate that any defamatory message was sent by the applicant on any whatsapp Group. Apart from this, there is nothing on record that any obscene photograph or video was made viral by the applicant. In the light of these facts, the FIR lodged on 25^th October, 2025 does not make

{3}

912 sr.no.odt

reference about the alleged incidents of 21^st October, 2025 and 22^nd October, 2025 In the absence of said incidents being mentioned in the FIR lodged with Pundlik Nagar Police Station, creates doubt about the present FIR. In any case, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the Mobile phone of the applicant has already been seized. As such, the custodial interrogation is not necessary. The applicant is not likely to flee from justice. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, the following order.

O R D E R

[I] The application for anticipatory bail stands allowed by confirming the interim relief.

[II] Pending criminal application, if any, stands disposed of.

grt/-