Bharat Navinchandra Gala vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Bharat Navinchandra Gala vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted: in the event of arrest in C.R. No. 219 of 2024 (Malad police station, Section 306 IPC), the applicant to be released on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, on conditions that (i) he shall not tamper with prosecution evidence till conclusion of trial, (ii) he shall attend Malad police station as and when called by the Investigating Officer till filing of the charge-sheet, and (iii) he shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court till conclusion of trial; the application and the Interim Application/s stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in C.R. No. 219 of 2024 (Malad police station, Section 306 IPC), is entitled to pre-arrest bail, i.e., whether his custody is required in the crime. +1 more

Court's answer

In the court's view, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required in the present crime; however, to dispel the apprehension of the prosecution, certain conditions can be imposed on the applicant.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, there are no specific allegations against the applicant that, soon before the death of the deceased, the applicant abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

Key takeaways

It prima facie appears that the transaction between the applicant and the deceased was civil in nature.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Pre-arrest bail allowed - offence under Section 306 IPC (C.R. No. 219 of 2024, Malad police station, Mumbai) arising from the suicide of Dilip Seth on 26.02.2024 and the FIR lodged by his widow on 09.03.2024 alleging that sums of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 75 lakhs (total Rs. 1 crore per the F.I.R. narration) invested pursuant to an MOU dated 07.02.2020 were neither repaid nor carried interest, driving the deceased to depression and suicide. Held (Abhay J. Mantri, J.): prima facie there are no specific allegations that the applicant abetted or instigated the suicide soon before death, and the transaction appears civil in nature; investigation is complete, the charge-sheet was to be filed within two weeks, the investigating officer did not seek custody, and the applicant (a developer resident of Mumbai) has no criminal antecedents. Custodial interrogation held unnecessary; bail granted on P.B. and S.B. of Rs. 1,00,000/- with conditions against tampering, attendance at Malad police station till charge-sheet, and no departure from India without leave; application and interim application disposed of. No precedents cited.

1-aba-9782024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.978 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1468 OF 2024

Bharat Navinchandra Gala ...Applicant Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Another ...Respondents

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.04.09 10:32:25 +0530

Mr. Murtaza Najmi a/w. Mr. Abhinesh Yadav, Ms. Nanky Kanunga, and Ms. Farida Najmi, for the Applicant.

Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for Respondent/State. Mr. Rahul Karnik, for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Shekhar Baramati, API, Malad Police Station.

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 8^th APRIL, 2026

P.C. :

The Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with

C.R. No. 219 of 2024, registered at Malad police station, Mumbai, for the

offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant, learned APP

for the State and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent

No. 2. The investigating officer is present in the Court. Perused the Application and the case papers.

At the outset, it appears that on 26^th February, 2024, the

Vishal Parekar

1 of 6

1-aba-9782024.doc

deceased Dilip Seth had committed suicide. Therefore, on 9^th March, 2024, the informant, Ms. Pooja Seth, the widow of the deceased, lodged a report against the Applicant alleging that in January, 2020, the Applicant's son approached the deceased and took away Rs. 25 lakhs for investment purposes. It is further alleged that the deceased instructed the Applicant to hand over the said amount to Dharmen Doshi, as he needed it, and that said amount would be adjusted against future investment. After that, the deceased further invested Rs. 75 lakhs in the construction business on the condition that the Applicant shall pay interest thereon. For the security of the said amount, they entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short, ‘ MOU’ ) dated 7^th February, 2020. However, the Applicant neither returned the said amount nor paid interest. So, the deceased was suffering from financial crisis and, therefore, under depression, he committed suicide. Based on the said information, an offence has been registered against the Applicant.

Mr. Najmi, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, vehemently contended that the investigation has been completed. The transaction between the Applicant and the deceased was of a civil nature, and the Applicant is ready to return an amount of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- to the Informant. He further submitted that there is a delay of 13 days in lodging Vishal Parekar 2 of 6

1-aba-9782024.doc

the F.I.R., which the Informant did not explain, when on the same day they were conversant about a note recorded on the mobile. He further submitted that, pursuant to the MOU, on 17^th September, 2020, the Applicant had executed a registered Agreement of Sale in respect of Flat No. 1002 in favour of the informant for consideration of Rs. 75 lakhs, as mentioned in clause ‘Y’ of the Agreement for Sale. Thus, the Applicant has acted in accordance with the MOU. Therefore, he submitted that, at most, the Informant can avail of the civil remedy for recovery of the amount, and not the criminal proceedings. Lastly, he argued that with a view to pressurising the applicant, a false report has been lodged against the Applicant. Hence, he contended that the custody of the Applicant is not required in the present crime and urged the granting of pre-arrest bail to the Applicant.

Ms. Ambekar, learned APP, submitted that the investigation

has been completed. The investigating officer will file a charge sheet in the Court within two weeks. However, upon query, she could not state the purpose for which the Applicant's custody is required. She submitted to pass an appropriate order.

Similarly, Mr. Karnik, learned Advocate for Respondent No.

2, submitted that the Applicant has not repaid the amount paid to him. Vishal Parekar 3 of 6

1-aba-9782024.doc

Therefore, he resisted the Application for the grant of pre-arrest bail. He further submitted that, as per clause 2 of the MOU dated 7^th February, 2020, the Applicant agreed to repay Rs. 75 lakhs, together with 30% interest, to the deceased. But the Applicant failed to repay the amount. However, he does not dispute the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the informant. But contended that, to date, no possession of the flat has been given to the informant. Thus, he failed to act in accordance with the agreement. Therefore, he submitted that if the court comes to the conclusion that the Applicant is entitled to bail, then stringent conditions may be imposed on him. As such, he prayed for the Application to be rejected.

Having heard the learned Advocate for the parties, at the outset, it appears that as per the allegations in the F.I.R., the deceased has paid an amount of Rs. 1 Crore to the Applicant for investing the same in the construction business and the Applicant has neither repaid the said amount nor paid interest on the same. Also, he failed to hand over the possession of the flat to the informant as agreed. This itself shows that the transaction between the Applicant and the deceased was civil in nature. Similarly, the investigating officer submitted that the investigation has been completed, that he does not require the Applicant's custody, and that Vishal Parekar 4 of 6

1-aba-9782024.doc

he will file the charge-sheet within two weeks. Apart from that, the Applicant is a Developer and a resident of Mumbai. No criminal antecedents of the Applicant are brought before the court.

Thus, considering the facts of the case, prima facie it appears

that there are no specific allegations against the Applicant that, soon before the death of the deceased, the Applicant has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It prima facie appears that the transaction between the Applicant and the deceased was civil in nature. Having considered the above, in my view, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required in the present crime. However, to dispel the apprehension of the prosecution, certain conditions can be imposed on the Applicant.

As a result , the Application is allowed.

In the event of the arrest of the Applicant in connection with

C.R. No. 219 of 2024 registered with Malad police station, Mumbai, for

the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, he be released on bail on furnishing P. B. and S.B. of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 1

lakh) with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions:

5 of 6

Vishal Parekar

1-aba-9782024.doc

(i) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence

in any manner till conclusion of the trial.

(ii) The Applicant shall attend Malad police station as and when

called by the Investigating Officer till filing of the charge-sheet.

(iii) The Applicant shall not leave India without prior permission

of the Court till the conclusion of the trial.

The Application is disposed of.

In view of the above, the Interim Application/s also stand/s

disposed of.

6 of 6

Vishal Parekar