Introduction
Interim relief in criminal applications before the High Court — particularly at the very first hearing before a Division Bench — is a significant judicial development that reflects the Court’s prima facie assessment of the case. When a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court grants ad-interim relief at the threshold stage, it signals that the applicants have made out a case worthy of protection pending full hearing. The order passed on 28 August 2024 in Criminal Application (APL) No. 1035 of 2024 before the Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice A.S. Gadkari and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Neela Gokhale is one such significant threshold order — granting ad-interim relief while simultaneously permitting procedural amendments to strengthen the application.
Background of the Case
The applicants — Bhavik Niranjan Shah and Others — filed Criminal Application (APL) No. 1035 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court under its criminal appellate jurisdiction. The respondent is the State of Maharashtra.
The application was filed seeking, among other reliefs, the relief mentioned in prayer clause (d) — which the Court granted on an ad-interim basis at the first hearing itself.
Proceedings Before the Court
At the first hearing on 28 August 2024, the Division Bench dealt with two distinct aspects of the matter — a procedural application for amendment and the substantive prayer for interim relief.
Amendment Application — Allowed
The applicants sought:
- Leave to implead the first informant as Respondent No. 2 in the application
- Leave to annex additional documents on which the applicants place reliance
The Division Bench allowed both prayers, directing:
- The amendment to be carried out within one week from the date of the order
- The amended copy of the application to be served upon Respondent No. 2 (the first informant) within the same stipulated one-week period
Ad-Interim Relief — Granted
Taking into consideration the relations inter-se between the parties, the Division Bench granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) of the application — operative till the returnable date.
The matter was stood over to 18 September 2024.
Legal Significance of This Order
Though the order is brief — as threshold orders at the first hearing typically are — it carries several important legal implications:
① Ad-Interim Relief at First Hearing — A Significant Judicial Signal The grant of ad-interim relief at the very first hearing, before even the respondents have filed their reply, reflects a prima facie assessment by the Division Bench that the applicants’ case merited immediate protection. In criminal applications before High Courts — where courts are generally cautious about granting interim orders — such threshold relief carries significant weight.
② Relations Inter-Se Between Parties as the Basis The Court’s specific reasoning — “taking into consideration the relations inter-se between the parties” — is a nuanced and significant observation. It reflects the Court’s recognition that the nature of the relationship between the parties is a relevant and material consideration in deciding whether interim protection is warranted. This is a factor courts frequently weigh in cases involving private complaints, matrimonial disputes, commercial disputes with criminal overtones, and similar matters.
③ Impleadment of First Informant — Procedural Completeness The direction to implead the first informant as Respondent No. 2 reflects standard procedural practice in criminal applications before the Bombay High Court — ensuring that the person who set the criminal law in motion is a party to the proceedings and has an opportunity to be heard. The Court’s grant of leave to implead and to annex additional documents reflects a liberal procedural approach at the threshold stage, prioritizing the completeness of the record before the matter proceeds to full hearing.
④ Division Bench Jurisdiction The matter was heard by a Division Bench — comprising two judges — reflecting the nature and significance of the criminal application. Division Bench hearings in criminal matters before the Bombay High Court are typically reserved for applications involving substantial questions of law or matters of significant consequence.
⑤ One-Week Timeline for Amendment and Service The Court’s direction to complete the amendment and serve the amended application within one week reflects the Bombay High Court’s practice of setting firm timelines even at procedural stages — ensuring that matters move efficiently toward the returnable date.
Relevant Legal Framework
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Bombay — Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Nature of Application | Criminal Application under Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Relief Sought | Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) |
| Procedural Relief | Impleadment of first informant; annexure of additional documents |
| Interim Protection | Granted till returnable date — 18 September 2024 |
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s order in Bhavik Niranjan Shah and Others vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application APL 1035/2024) is a concise but significant threshold order reflecting the Division Bench’s prima facie satisfaction that the applicants’ case warranted immediate interim protection. The combination of ad-interim relief granted at the first hearing, the liberal approach to procedural amendments, and the specific reference to the inter-se relations between the parties collectively make this order a practically valuable reference for practitioners appearing in criminal applications before the Bombay High Court. It also demonstrates the firm’s expanding pan-India practice — with appearances now before the Bombay High Court in addition to the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Allahabad High Court.
