Summary & Analysis Of Supreme Court judgment in Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025 INSC 878)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
*(Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal Nos. arising from SLP(Crl) 10251/2024 & 10255/2024, Decided on 21.07.2025)*

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

• Section 438, CrPC: Grant of anticipatory bail.

• Doctrine of Anticipatory Bail: An "extraordinary remedy" not to be granted routinely (Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC Online SC 282).

• Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 387, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC: Offences related to unlawful assembly, trespass, intimidation, property damage, and criminal intimidation.

• Grounds for Bail Cancellation: Witness tampering, non-cooperation with investigation, and material concealment in bail applications.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Nikita (complainant-victim; estranged wife of accused Vishwajeet).
  Respondents:
  State of Maharashtra.
  Accused persons (Vishwajeet and family members/associates).

• Core Dispute: Challenge to Bombay High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to accused in FIR No. 1-103/2023 (Pune).

• Allegations: Forcible trespass, vandalism, and intimidation to seize the appellant’s hotel property.

• Courts Involved:
  Sessions Court, Pune (25.08.2023): Rejected anticipatory bail.
  Bombay High Court (19.06.2024): Granted anticipatory bail.
  Supreme Court (21.07.2025): Cancelled bail, directing accused to surrender.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background

• The appellant inherited Hotel Vaishali from her father.

• Her estranged husband, Vishwajeet:
  Fraudulently obtained a power of attorney and gift deed for the hotel.
  Secured an ex parte injunction (27.06.2023) from a civil court.
  With accomplices, forcibly trespassed into the hotel (29.06.2023), vandalized property (cut CCTV wires, damaged interiors), and intimidated staff.

• FIR Registered: Crime No. 1-103/2023 under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 387, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC.

Key Events

1. Civil Court Order Set Aside (17.08.2023): District Judge revoked the ex parte injunction obtained by Vishwajeet.

2. Sessions Court (25.08.2023): Denied anticipatory bail, noting Vishwajeet concealed the injunction’s cancellation.

3. High Court (19.06.2024): Granted anticipatory bail, ignoring:
   Material concealment by accused.
   Gravity of offences and criminal antecedents.

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. Anticipatory Bail Misapplied:
   Bail is not a rule but an exception (Srikant Upadhyay).
   High Court ignored:
   Seriousness of charges (organized trespass, intimidation, property damage).
   Custodial interrogation need (accused non-cooperative).

2. Material Concealment:
   Accused Vishwajeet hid the injunction’s cancellation to secure interim bail.

3. Criminal Antecedents & Witness Intimidation:
   Vishwajeet faced 4 other criminal cases, including:
   Threatening hotel staff (Crime No. 283/2023).
   Fraudulently mortgaging the hotel for ₹5 crores (Crime No. 167/2023).
   Violated bail conditions by intimidating witnesses.

4. State’s Support for Cancellation:
   State’s affidavit confirmed accused hampered investigation and posed a threat to witnesses.

Final Decision

• Anticipatory Bail Cancelled: For all accused.

• Directions:
  Accused must surrender within 2 weeks.
  May apply for regular bail, subject to police custody requests.

• Appeals Allowed: High Court’s order set aside.

Key Takeaways

1. Anticipatory bail requires strict scrutiny in grave offences.

2. Concealment of material facts vitiates bail grants.

3. Witness intimidation and non-cooperation warrant bail cancellation.

4. Courts must consider criminal history and custodial interrogation needs.