Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4) | Bail Granted in Trust Property Disputes Where Case Rests Solely on Documentary Evidence: Bombay HC (Aurangabad)

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, has granted bail to two applicants accused under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in a case arising from a dispute over a public trust's property. The Court held that while criminal antecedents are relevant, they cannot be the sole ground for denying bail when the dispute is predominantly civil and based on documentary evidence. This judgment underscores the principle that custodial detention post-charge-sheet must be justified by necessity, not merely the gravity of allegations.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicants, Paras Lalaman Nand and Santosh Baburao Tandale, were accused in Crime No. 231 of 2026 registered at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna, for offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The dispute arose from allegations relating to the property of a public trust, which the applicants contended was essentially civil in nature but had been given a criminal colour.

Key Facts

• The informant obtained documents from the Charity Commissioner, Jalna, which formed the basis of the FIR.
• The applicants alleged that no inquiry was initiated under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 before lodging the criminal complaint.
• The investigation was completed, and the charge-sheet was filed before the bail application.
• The prosecution case relied primarily on documentary evidence, which was already seized by the Investigating Agency.
• The applicants were in custody since 04.04.2026.

Procedural History

• Crime No. 231 of 2026 registered at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jalna, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• 04.04.2026: Applicants arrested and remanded to custody.
• Investigation completed: Charge-sheet filed.
• Bail Application No. 887 of 2026 filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench.
• Criminal Application No. 1775 of 2026: Filed seeking permission to assist the learned APP; allowed on 19.06.2026.
• 11.06.2026: Coordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court declined bail in a similar matter (Criminal Application No. 581 of 2026), citing the applicants' criminal antecedents.

The Parties' Positions

For the Applicants

• No offence was made out against the applicants; they were falsely implicated.
• The dispute was predominantly civil, relating to a public trust's property.
• No inquiry was conducted under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
• The criminal proceedings were initiated to harass the applicants.
• The investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet was filed; further custodial detention was unnecessary.

For the Respondent/State and Informant

• Criminal antecedents of the applicants were highlighted:
  • Applicant No. 1 (Paras): Fourteen criminal cases; eight acquittals, three at the stage of appearance, two under investigation, one at evidence stage.
  • Applicant No. 2 (Santosh): Six criminal cases; two acquittals, two at appearance stage, one at evidence stage, one under investigation.
• The Coordinate Bench's order dated 11.06.2026 (Criminal Application No. 581 of 2026) was cited to argue that bail should be denied due to the applicants' criminal history.
• The applicants did not deserve the discretionary relief of bail.

Relief Sought

The applicants sought release on bail on the grounds that:

• The allegations were civil in nature.
• The investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet was filed.
• Further custodial detention was unnecessary.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether custodial detention post-charge-sheet is justified when:

1. The dispute arises from a public trust's property, which is predominantly civil in nature.
2. The prosecution case relies primarily on documentary evidence already in its custody.
3. The applicants have criminal antecedents, but no specific risk of tampering or threat to witnesses is established.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicants

• The dispute was civil, relating to a public trust's property, and had been wrongly criminalized.
• No inquiry was conducted under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which was a procedural lapse.
• The investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet was filed; further detention was unnecessary.
• The applicants had been in custody since 04.04.2026, and their continued detention served no investigative purpose.

For the Respondent/State and Informant

• The criminal antecedents of the applicants were sufficient grounds to deny bail.
• The Coordinate Bench's order dated 11.06.2026 (Criminal Application No. 581 of 2026) was cited as precedent to argue that bail should be denied.
• The applicants did not merit the discretionary relief of bail due to their history of criminal involvement.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a balancing exercise between the right to liberty and the need for custodial detention, guided by the following principles:

1. Nature of the Dispute: The Court observed that the allegations arose from a dispute over a public trust's property, which was prima facie civil in nature. While the Court refrained from delving into the merits of the allegations at the bail stage, it noted that the criminal proceedings appeared to be an extension of a civil dispute.

2. Stage of Proceedings: The Court emphasized that the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed. The prosecution's case relied substantially on documentary evidence, which was already in its custody. The Court held that post-charge-sheet detention must be justified by necessity, such as the risk of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. No such risk was established in this case.

3. Criminal Antecedents: While the Court acknowledged the applicants' criminal antecedents, it held that these could not be the sole ground for denying bail. The Court reiterated the principle that bail should not be denied merely on the basis of the gravity of the offence or the applicants' past conduct, unless there is a specific risk to the investigation or trial.

"Though the learned counsel for the informant has heavily relied upon the criminal antecedents of the applicants, while considering an application for bail, the Court is also required to examine the nature of the allegations in the crime in question. The allegations in the present case arise out of a dispute relating to the property of a public trust. Prima facie, the dispute appears to revolve around the affairs and property of the trust. At this stage, this Court is not required to dwell into the merits of the allegations. The issues arising out of the allegations made against the applicants would be a matter for consideration during the course of trial. Therefore, the criminal antecedents of the applicants, by themselves, cannot be the sole ground to deny bail when the other relevant circumstances are taken into consideration."

1. Duration of Custody: The applicants had been in custody since 04.04.2026, a period of over two months. The Court held that prolonged detention without justification violates the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Discretionary Relief: The Court concluded that the facts and circumstances of the case warranted the grant of bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure the applicants' compliance with the trial process.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicants on the following terms:

1. The applicants, Paras Lalaman Nand and Santosh Baburao Tandale, were to be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 231 of 2026.

2. Each applicant was to execute a Personal Recognizance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 15,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount.

3. Conditions of Bail:

   • The applicants were prohibited from entering the territorial jurisdiction of Jalna District, except for attending court proceedings or as required by any Court or Investigating Agency.
   • The applicants were barred from tampering with prosecution evidence or threatening or inducing prosecution witnesses.
   • Breach of any condition would entitle the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail.

4. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and confined to the bail application. The Trial Court was not to be influenced by these observations while deciding the case on merits.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Criminal Antecedents Are Not Conclusive for Bail Denial

• Practitioners must argue that while criminal antecedents are relevant, they cannot be the sole ground for denying bail. Courts must examine the nature of the allegations and the stage of proceedings.
• Post-charge-sheet detention must be justified by specific risks, such as tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. Mere gravity of the offence or past conduct is insufficient.

Trust Property Disputes: Civil vs. Criminal Jurisdiction

• Civil disputes relating to public trusts should not be criminalized without proper inquiry under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
• Prosecutors and informants must establish a clear criminal intent beyond the civil dispute to justify criminal proceedings.
• Defence strategy: Highlight the civil nature of the dispute and the absence of criminal intent to secure bail.

Documentary Evidence and Custodial Detention

• Where the prosecution case relies primarily on documentary evidence already in its custody, custodial detention post-charge-sheet is unjustified unless specific risks are established.
• Practitioners should emphasize the completion of investigation and the filing of charge-sheet as grounds for bail, particularly when the evidence is documentary and non-testimonial.
• Courts are likely to grant bail in such cases, subject to stringent conditions to prevent misuse of liberty.

Procedural Safeguards in Bail Applications

• Coordinate Bench decisions are persuasive but not binding. Practitioners can distinguish cases based on factual nuances, such as the nature of allegations and the stage of proceedings.
• Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that prolonged detention without justification is unconstitutional. Courts must balance the right to liberty with the interests of justice.
• Conditions of bail must be tailored to the facts of the case to ensure compliance without unduly restricting the applicant's liberty.