Kavita Ashok Jethwa vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors

Held

The Court noted that the anticipatory bail was initially granted in view of consent terms, and subsequently, the anticipatory bail was cancelled due to a breach of these consent terms. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court deemed it appropriate to set aside both the order granting anticipatory bail and the impugned order cancelling it. The Court permitted the Petitioner to file a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. If such an application is filed, the Sessions Court is to decide it on its own merits. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but by permitting a fresh application, it effectively allowed for a re-evaluation of the bail application on its merits.

Facts

The Petitioner, Kavita Ashok Jethwa, is an accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 420, 406, 120(B), 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. She had applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. During the pendency of this application, the parties reached a settlement and filed consent terms. Based on these consent terms, the First Informant (Respondent No. 3) consented to the Petitioner being released on anticipatory bail, which was granted by the Sessions Court on November 29, 2024. Subsequently, the First Informant filed an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail, alleging a breach of the consent terms. The Additional Sessions Judge, by an order dated December 19, 2025, cancelled the anticipatory bail previously granted to the Petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether a breach of consent terms can be a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail, as per Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? The Petitioner argued that a breach of consent terms is not a valid ground for cancelling anticipatory bail and relied on Supreme Court decisions in Pritpal Singh vs. State of Bihar & Anr. and Bimal Chatterjee vs. Sanchita Chatterjee & Anr. The Respondent No. 3 contended that since the anticipatory bail was granted based on consent terms, the Sessions Court was justified in cancelling it due to a breach of those terms. The Respondent relied on Supreme Court decisions in Kundan Singh vs. Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise and Gajanan Dattatray Gore vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.