Bombay HC: Whether the court should release the accused on anticipatory bail if dispute is of civil nature?

 I have perused the first information report. 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. {Para 9}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3087 OF 2025

Shantadevi Mafatlal Purohit and Ors  V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. 

Mr. Bipul Maity Advocate for the Applicants.

Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for the Respondent/State.

Mr. Sunil R. Pandey i/b Adv. Raju M., Advocate for the first

informant.

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.

DATE : 06.02.2026.

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9463

Print Page

Guard’s Word, Open‑Place Recoveries and CCTV: Judicial Lessons in Criminal Evidence”

 

A case‑study in circumstantial evidence, Section 27, electronic proof and single‑witness testimony

A recent jail‑escape prosecution from India offers a compact tutorial on almost every hard question in criminal evidence: how far a court can go on the word of a solitary witness; what to do with “demonstration panchnamas”; how to treat recoveries from open places; what Section 65B demands from CCTV evidence; and how to apply the Sharad Sarda “panchsheel” to a conspiracy theory built almost entirely on circumstantial proof.

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines on essentials to be included in bail order of criminal case

Additionally, in the interest of justice, the following illustrative disclosure framework is provided, which is purely recommendatory in nature, evolved in continuation of, and consonance with the principles laid down by this Court concerning full and candid disclosure in bail proceedings. The framework is intended to act as a facilitative guide, leaving it open to the concerned courts to adopt, adapt, or refine the same in accordance with their procedural framework and the exigencies of individual cases. {Para 49}

(A) CASE DETAILS

• FIR Number & Date

• Police Station, District and State

• Sections invoked

• Maximum punishment prescribed

(B) CUSTODY & PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE

• Date of Arrest

• Total period of custody undergone

(C) STATUS OF TRIAL

• Stage of proceedings (Investigation/Chargesheet/Cognizance/Framing of charges/Trial)

• Total number of witnesses cited in the chargesheet

• Number of prosecution witnesses examined

(D) CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS

• FIR No. & Police Station

• Sections

• Status (Pending/Acquitted/ Convicted)

(E) PREVIOUS BAIL APPLICATIONS

• Court

• Case No.

• Outcome of case

(F) COERCIVE PROCESSES

• Whether any Non-Bailable Warrant was issued

• Whether declared a proclaimed offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026 

Decided On: 11.02.2026

Zeba Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 144, MANU/SC/0145/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Recovery Of A Weapon From An Open Place Accessible To All Not Reliable U/ S of 27 Evidence Act

27.1. This Court has, in various judgments, clarified this position. Illustratively, in Jaikam Khan v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/1259/2021 : (2021) 13 SCC 716 it was observed:

One of the alleged recoveries is from the room where deceased Asgari used to sleep. The other two recoveries are from open field, just behind the house of deceased Shaukeen Khan i.e. the place of incident. It could thus be seen that the recoveries were made from the places, which were accessible to one and all and as such, no reliance could be placed on such recoveries.

(Emphasis supplied)

 27.2. Also, in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. MANU/SC/0211/2023 : (2023) 6 SCC 605 the Court held:

20. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no memorandum statement of the Accused as required Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. We find that the approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law. However, this circumstance which, in our view, could not have been used, has been employed by the High Court to seek corroboration to the extra- judicial confession.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2011

Decided On: 06.11.2023

Manjunath and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1212/2023.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page