Ms Sreerupa Dutta v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 350 OF 2025 Ms Sreerupa Dutta ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Ms. Bhavyaa Thakur i/b Rahil Siddiqui for the Applicant. Adv. Viral Bhanushali for the Respondent No.2 i.e. Deepak Sinha Mr. S.S. Ghag APP for the Respondent-State

CORAM:

R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATED:

21st APRIL, 2026 PC:- 1.

Applicant/Original informant seeks cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions court to contesting respondent in Criminal Bail Application No. 594 of 2025 in connection with C.R. No. 590 of 2025 registered with Amboli Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2.

The respondent was enlarged on bail, and said order indicates that the informant has recorded 'No objection' for grant of bail.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has agreed to repay money to the informant and therefore, on that said understanding, the No Objection was recorded. To support this submission, she places reliance on consent terms filed along with application (page no. 37). It is her submission that since money has not been paid pursuant to the consent term, the bail granted deserves cancellation .

4.

The contesting respondent opposed the application by pointing of that such consent terms were not produced before the Trial Court while granting bail. He drew attention of this Court in Affidavit of the informant recording no objection for grant of bail where there is no reference of any consent terms agreed between the parties. According to him since bail has not been granted on the basis of any agreement of repayment of money, there is no reason to cancel the bail.

5.

During the course of hearing specific query was made to the learned counsel for the applicant/ original informant as to whether any consents wore placed before the Court while bail was granted. On instructions, she makes a candid statement that no such consent terms were placed before the Court. Apart from this, perusal of the affidavit of the informant filed before the Sessions

Court indicates that there is no reference of any consent terms between the parties. Since the alleged consent terms between the parties were not grounds for the grant of bail, alleged noncompliance thereof cannot become a cause for cancellation of bail. the applicant therefore has failed to make out any case to that effect.

6.

Hence, application stands dismissed.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.) {