The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with the Bombay High Court’s decision that had cancelled bail granted to Rhythm Arvind Goyal in a serious criminal case from Mumbai. After hearing senior lawyers at length, the Vacation Bench made it clear that the trial court had erred in law while granting bail, but left the door open for a fresh bail plea based purely on merits.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from FIR No. 1102 of 2025 registered at Amboli Police Station, Mumbai. The case involves charges under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 74, 79, 89, 118(1), and 3(5).
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Refuses Re-Evaluation of UP Board Answersheets, Upholds Limited Scope of Scrutiny
The Sessions Court had earlier granted regular bail to the accused, citing non-compliance with certain procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. These included alleged lapses under Section 35(3) and Section 48 of the new procedural law.
However, the victim challenged this bail order before the Bombay High Court. After examining the record, the High Court overturned the Sessions Court’s decision, holding that the reasons relied upon for granting bail were legally unsustainable.
Rhythm Arvind Goyal approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, seeking restoration of the bail order. The Vacation Bench, led by the Chief Justice of India and accompanied by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Augustine George Masih, heard arguments from both sides.
Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court had correctly noticed procedural violations and that continued custody was unwarranted. The State, however, defended the High Court’s reasoning and urged the Court not to dilute the standards applied in serious offences.
Read also:- J&K High Court Quashes Dowry FIR, Calls Case Retaliation After Husband's Second Marriage
Court’s Observations
After considering the submissions, the Bench expressed clear agreement with the High Court’s approach. The Court noted that the Sessions Court had committed a “patent error” by entertaining grounds that did not justify grant of bail at that stage.
“The conclusions drawn by the High Court are legally correct,” the Bench observed, adding that the impugned judgment did not call for any interference.
At the same time, the Supreme Court took note of one important aspect highlighted by the High Court - that the Sessions Court had not examined the bail plea on merits at all. This, the Bench felt, required a fair opportunity to be given to the accused.
Final Decision and Directions
Disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court issued specific directions to balance both sides. The petitioner was asked to surrender within one week, as already directed by the High Court.
Thereafter, the Court clarified, he would be free to apply for bail again before the Sessions Court, this time strictly on merits. Importantly, the trial court was directed to consider such an application independently, without being influenced by the High Court’s order or the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere.
The Bench further directed that if a fresh bail application is filed, it should be decided expeditiously, preferably within one week. With these directions, the Special Leave Petition and all pending applications were disposed of RHYTHM ARVIND GOYAL.
Case Title: Rhythm Arvind Goyal vs State of Maharashtra & Another
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 21199 of 2025
Case Type: Criminal – Bail Matter
Decision Date: 29 December 2025
