Prima Facie Civil Dispute Painted with Criminal Colour Cannot Justify Arrest: Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Possession-Theft FIR Involving Shop Ownership Row

“How Can One Commit Theft in One’s Own Possession?”:  In a significant judgment  Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) granted anticipatory bail to one Nilesh Pandurang Haral, who apprehended arrest in an FIR alleging criminal trespass and theft in a commercial shop.

Justice Advait M. Sethna, while allowing the Anticipatory Bail, observed that “the proceedings in the present case have all trappings of a civil matter and entail civil consequences”, particularly when the ownership and possession of the shop are already sub judice before the Civil Court.

The Court firmly noted that “the dispute is civil in nature but has been given a criminal colour, which by itself cannot be the basis to deny bail”, especially when the applicant is shown to be in possession through a registered agreement and a consent deed acknowledged in prior judicial orders.

The case stemmed from FIR No. 106/2025 lodged on 1st April 2025 at Dhule City Police Station, alleging that the applicant, Nilesh Haral, along with a few persons, forcibly entered a shop belonging to the informant, removed items worth ₹27 lakhs, and threatened him. The incident allegedly occurred overnight between 29 and 30 March 2025.

The complainant claimed that the shop was in his possession for a medicinal business since 2022 and that Haral’s intrusion amounted to theft and criminal intimidation under Sections 305, 331(3), 331(4), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

However, the applicant pointed out that the very same property was already the subject of two civil suits—RCS No. 27/2022 and RCS No. 59/2022, wherein his possession had been recognized by the civil court under a registered agreement dated 2 December 2021 and a Consent Deed dated 10 February 2020.

Possession and Civil Dispute:

Justice Sethna held that the prima facie possession of the applicant was judicially acknowledged, and the pending civil litigation undermined the criminality alleged in the FIR.

“It is prima facie brought on record that the Dhule Municipal Corporation has executed the registered agreement in favour of defendant no. 1 regarding the suit property. Moreover, defendant no. 1 is prima facie in possession of the suit property vide the consent deed dated 10/02/2020,” — Civil Court observation quoted by Bombay High Court, Para 7

The High Court thus concluded that the allegation of theft could not be sustained when the person accused is the very party found to be in possession by a competent court.

“It is difficult even to believe that the allegation of theft can be sustained in one’s own shop,” the Court remarked, underscoring the civil character of the dispute.

Not a Straightjacket Formula

The State attempted to oppose the bail on the ground that the applicant had four previous FIRs registered against him. However, the Court refused to be swayed solely by antecedents, noting that:

“It is trite law that criminal antecedents cannot be applied as a straightjacket formula… The issue has to be examined in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of each case,” — Para 8

The Court recorded that in one prior case (CR No. 355/2022), the applicant had already been acquitted, and in another (CR No. 86/2022), the same informant had been granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the alleged criminal background could not override the facts in favour of bail in the present case.

Recovery of Alleged Stolen Goods Already Partially Made

Of the ₹27 lakh worth items allegedly stolen, the prosecution admitted that ₹15 lakhs had already been recovered, reducing the necessity of custodial interrogation.

“Considering that the shop is subject to pending civil proceedings and in the possession of the applicant, the ingredients of the alleged offences in the FIR are not forthcoming at this stage,” — Para 9

The Court concluded that custodial interrogation was not warranted, and the Anticipatory Bail Application deserved to be allowed.

The High Court granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions:

• Furnishing a PR bond of ₹20,000 with one solvent surety.

• Attending the police station every Monday at 11:30 AM.

• Cooperating with the investigation and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

• Not leaving the jurisdiction without prior court permission.

Justice Sethna made it clear that these observations were prima facie and limited to the adjudication of the bail plea.

This decision reaffirms the legal principle that “civil disputes cannot be casually criminalised”, and criminal law cannot be used as a weapon in property or contractual disputes already pending before civil courts.

By recognizing the distinction between criminal trespass and disputes over lawful possession, the Bombay High Court reinforced the cautious approach required in granting or denying bail in overlapping civil-criminal conflicts.

“When the civil court has recognised possession under a registered deed, criminal law must not be allowed to overreach or preempt the adjudication by indulging in penal intimidation,” the Court effectively concluded.

Date of Decision: 2 July 2025