Court observes lack of evidence on applicant's knowledge of meetings' nature and directs cooperation with investigation; custody deemed unnecessary.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 11, 2026, the Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to Sangita Jagannath Shete, a lady advocate, accused in a criminal case registered under FIR No. 347 of 2025 at N.R.I. Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The case pertains to allegations involving financial transactions and meetings held at the advocate's office by other accused persons.
The offence, registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 336(3), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, involves charges that the main accused failed to supply US dollars to a complainant despite receiving Rs. 42,50,000. The applicant's sole alleged involvement was permitting her office premises to be used for meetings by co-accused individuals.
During the hearing, Advocate Saurabh Butala, representing Ms. Shete, contended that there was no material evidence to establish her awareness or knowledge regarding the nature or purpose of the meetings conducted at her office. It was further submitted that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had already been filed against other accused persons. The applicant had no prior criminal record and expressed readiness to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
The prosecution, represented by Mr. Arfan Sait, Assistant Public Prosecutor, acknowledged that the FIR included allegations about the use of the applicant's office for meetings but could not present any proof that the applicant had knowledge of the illicit nature of those meetings.
Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar, presiding over the matter, observed that the applicant's role appeared peripheral since she only allowed the use of her office premises and did not actively participate in the alleged criminal conduct. Given the absence of any requirement for recovery from the applicant and the fact that the charge-sheet was already filed, the court found no justification for her custodial interrogation.
The Court accordingly directed Ms. Shete to attend the police station on September 21, 2026, and cooperate with the investigation as and when required. The Court granted interim protection from arrest until the next hearing scheduled for October 5, 2026, where the matter will be further considered along with another anticipatory bail application.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in considering the extent of involvement of an accused and the necessity of custodial interrogation, particularly when the evidence does not substantiate active participation or awareness of criminal activities. It also highlights the safeguards in place to protect individuals from unwarranted arrest while ensuring cooperation with law enforcement agencies.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail granted to an applicant accused of allowing her office to be used for meetings related to alleged offenses, as no material evidence showed her awareness of the nature of such meetings.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(2), 336(3), 3(5)
Sangita Jagannath Shete v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2981913
