The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Shantadevi Mafatlal Purohit and others in a case involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust amounting to ₹60 lakhs. The Court, presided over by Justice N.R. Borkar, observed that the dispute between the parties appears to be of a civil nature and noted procedural irregularities regarding the registration of an FIR against a juvenile.
Background of the Case
The case originated from Crime No. 158 of 2025 registered at the MRA Marg Police Station. The applicants—Shantadevi Mafatlal Purohit and others—apprehended arrest for offences punishable under Sections 316(2) (criminal breach of trust), 318(4) (cheating), 351(2) (criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
According to the prosecution, the first informant, a dealer in Chinese toys, was acquainted with the husband of Applicant No. 1, who was also in the same business. It was alleged that between November 25, 2024, and November 29, 2024, the informant provided goods worth ₹75 lakhs to the applicants and co-accused on the assurance of a profitable resale. The prosecution claimed that while the goods were sold, only ₹15 lakhs were paid to the informant, leaving a balance of ₹60 lakhs. The informant further alleged that he was threatened with dire consequences when he demanded the remaining amount.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the applicants argued that the entire family had been named as accused in the FIR, including Applicant No. 2, who is a juvenile. They contended that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature and that there was no necessity for custodial interrogation. It was specifically pointed out that Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, prohibits the registration of an FIR against a child in conflict with law except for heinous offences.
Conversely, the learned APP and counsel for the first informant opposed the bail, submitting that the applicants were involved in a “serious offence of cheating” and that the nature of the crime warranted denying anticipatory bail.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court revisited its previous order dated November 20, 2025, which highlighted that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Zone-1, Mumbai, had accorded approval for the FIR despite an contrary opinion from the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP). The ACP’s initial opinion stated:
“On perusal of the application documents, it is our primary opinion that the matter related to financial transactions between the applicant and the non-applicant is of a civil nature.”
The High Court noted that the DCP had “mechanically” ignored this opinion. In a subsequent affidavit filed by the DCP as per the Court’s direction, the Court found there was “no explanation as to why the opinion of the Assistant Commissioner of Police was discarded.”
Upon perusing the FIR and the facts of the case, Justice Borkar observed:
“Prima-facie, the dispute between the parties appears to be of a civil nature. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the applicants on anticipatory bail.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the application. In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No. 158 of 2025 at MRA Marg Police Station, the applicants are to be released on bail upon furnishing a P.R. Bond of ₹25,000 each with one or two sureties in the like amount.
Case Details
- Case Title: Shantadevi Mafatlal Purohit and Ors vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Case Number: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3087 of 2025
- Bench: Justice N.R. Borkar
- Date of Order: February 6, 2026
- Appearances: Mr. Bipul Maity (For Applicants); Ms. Supriya Kak, APP (For State); Mr. Sunil R. Pandey i/b Adv. Raju M. (For First Informant).
