The resolution of criminal proceedings, particularly those stemming from financial disputes, often takes a decisive turn when the parties reach a mutual settlement. This was precisely the scenario in the case of Criminal Bail Application No. 481 of 2024, filed by the applicant Sandeep Jhaveri before the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. Accused in C.R. No. 539/2023 registered at Santacruz Police Station for the offense of Cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Jhaveri secured his release on bail primarily due to the informant’s unequivocal declaration that the matter had been settled. This order, delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Shri S. N. Patil on March 1, 2024, underscores the significant weight courts afford to private settlements in cases where the offense is primarily financial in nature and does not involve severe violence or social harm.
The genesis of the case lay in a series of cryptocurrency investment transactions between the applicant and the informant, who were neighbors residing in the same building. According to the prosecution’s facts, the applicant allegedly induced the informant, starting March 21, 2021, to invest in cryptocurrency, promising lucrative returns. The informant initially transferred Rs. 5 lakhs and later invested additional amounts, totaling Rs. 28 lakhs. The applicant allegedly kept the informant updated via WhatsApp messages, showing fictitious high returns—at one point claiming the investment had soared to Rs. 15 crores—but later gave evasive replies when asked about the transactions. The refusal to return the principal amount in January 2022 led to the registration of the FIR in 2023. This narrative established a classic case of alleged financial deception, a common occurrence in the nascent and often unregulated space of cryptocurrency trading.
The Pivotal Role of Mutual Settlement in Bail Proceedings
The applicant, represented by Advocate Mr. Rishikesh Mundargi, sought bail on grounds that he was falsely implicated, was himself a victim of a fraudulent transaction involving Rs. 1,12,98,741/− stolen from his own Binance account, and that the investment was never guaranteed to be risk-free. However, the most decisive development occurred in open court with the appearance of the informant, represented by advocate Mr. Chittesh Manoj Dalmia, who filed Consent Terms (Ex. 4) and an accompanying Affidavit (Ex. 5). This submission unequivocally stated that the informant had settled the matter with the applicant/accused and wished to withdraw the allegations leveled against him. The informant affirmed that he had no objection to the applicant being released on bail.
This voluntary withdrawal of support by the complainant transformed the entire legal landscape of the bail application. Although the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC is generally non-compoundable, meaning it cannot be formally settled without the court’s permission, the fact of a genuine compromise between the parties holds immense persuasive value in bail hearings. The court acknowledges that continuing the detention of the accused and prosecuting the case when the victim no longer wishes to pursue the charges is often a futile exercise, consuming judicial resources without achieving the ends of justice as perceived by the injured party. The prosecution, represented by Learned APP Mrs. Ashwini Rayakar, formally admitted the fact of the settlement between the parties.
Judicial Rationale and Conditions for Release
In delivering the order, Additional Sessions Judge S. N. Patil centered the rationale squarely on the private compromise. The court concluded, “Considering all these aspects, the physical custody of the applicant/accused is not necessary as the matter is settled between the parties.” This judicial finding led directly to the conclusion that the applicant was entitled to be released on bail. The judicial custody, which began with the applicant’s arrest on February 15, 2024, was deemed redundant given the lack of animus from the primary affected party.
The court allowed Bail Application No. 481 of 2024, ordering the release of Sandeep Jhaveri on furnishing a Personal Bond (PB) of Rs. 30,000/− with one surety of the like amount. To expedite the release, the applicant was also granted the benefit of provisional cash bail of Rs. 30,000/− for a period of four weeks, allowing him time to arrange for the solvent surety. Although the matter was settled, the court, as a matter of judicial protocol and to ensure general law and order, imposed standard conditions: the applicant must not directly or indirectly threaten or induce any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor tamper with the evidence. He was also prohibited from leaving India without prior court permission and from committing similar offenses while on bail. The swiftness of the judicial process, with the bail order being decided just four days after the application was presented, further highlights the promptness with which courts respond to genuine, documented settlements between litigating parties.