Chetan Kantilal Sabadra v. The State Of Maharashtra
2026:BHC-AUG:22613 {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2110 OF 2025 Chetan Kantilal Sabadra ....Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent .....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Syed G R, Md. Asimuddin APP for Respondents: Mr. N.R. Dayma Advocate for applicant in Criminal Application NO. 4811 of 2025 : Mr. Jitendra S. Jain.
WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4811 OF 2025 IN ABA/2110/2025 CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2026.
P.C. :- 1.
The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 418, registered with Jawaharnagar Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar for the offence punishable under Sections 75, 78, 356-2, 351-2 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Section 67 and 67A of the Information and Technology Act. 2.
The FIR in question, came to be lodged on 15th November, 2025 contending that the informant and the applicant got acquainted with each other. The informant states that the friendship of the informant the applicant turned into love relationship. She claims that the informant used to insist her for obtaining divorce from her husband. She further claims that at his insistence, she lodged report against her
{2} husband and in-laws at Pundlik Nagar Police Station. She further alleged that the applicant sent obscene photos and videos of the applicant and informant to her father in law. He also threatened her. On the basis of this information, the offence in question came to be registered. 3.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that prior to the present FIR, one more crime was registered by the informant vide FIR No. 437 of 2025, registered with Pundlik Nagar Police station. It is his submission that the report was lodged on 25th October, 2025, however, inspite of the same, there is no reference about the occurrence of the alleged incident on 21.10.2025 and 22.10.2025. It is further his submission that there is a dispute between the applicant and the informant with regard to the dis-honour of the cheque and it is only after issuance of notice dated 6th October, 2025, a false report came to be filed. He further submits that except for the complaints lodged by the present informant, there are no other offences registered against the applicant. 4.
The learned APP and the learned counsel for the informant opposed grant of any relief to the applicant. It is their contention that from the FIR, it can be seen that the applicant has committed offence. It is argued on behalf of the prosecution that the applicant has sent the photograpohs of the applicant and informant to the father in law of the informant, and which shows his malafide intention. It is further submitted that messages were sent on Whatsapp group, whereby, the informant is defamed.
5.
Prima facie perusal of the investigation papers do not indicate that any defamatory message was sent by the applicant on any whatsapp Group. Apart from this, there is nothing on record that any obscene photograph or video was made viral by the applicant. In the light of these facts, the FIR lodged on 25th October, 2025 does not make
{3} reference about the alleged incidents of 21st October, 2025 and 22nd October, 2025 In the absence of said incidents being mentioned in the FIR lodged with Pundlik Nagar Police Station, creates doubt about the present FIR. In any case, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the Mobile phone of the applicant has already been seized. As such, the custodial interrogation is not necessary. The applicant is not likely to flee from justice. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application. Hence, the following order.
6.
O R D E R
[I] The application for anticipatory bail stands allowed by confirming the interim relief.
[II] Pending criminal application, if any, stands disposed of. [R.M. JOSHI, J.] grt/-