Bombay High Court

GIMLIBAI BAMNYA RAUTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court held that, given the applicant’s serious injuries and the improbability of her causing the deceased’s death, anticipatory bail was warranted to protect her liberty.

Summary

Gimlibai Bamnya Raut applied for anticipatory bail in a murder case (Crime No. 65 of 2026) under Sections 103(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR alleges that Mahendra, a mentally ill man, entered her house, assaulted her with a stick, and that she and family members later tied him to a cement pole, leading to his death. The applicant, who suffered a skull fracture and hemorrhage requiring a month of hospitalization, argued she was the victim and could not have inflicted the fatal injuries. The State opposed bail, citing the death and circumstantial evidence. The court, noting the medical evidence of serious injuries to the applicant and the implausibility of her committing the assault, held that her liberty deserved protection and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant despite the murder charge under Sections 103(1) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the applicant’s injuries and victim status preclude the likelihood of her committing the alleged assault leading to death.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
murder
self-defence
victim
circumstantial evidence
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
bail conditions

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

925 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1609 OF 2026

GIMLIBAI BAMNYA RAUT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr. Gajendra Devichand Jain, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for the Respondent/State

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 65 of

2026, registered with Molgi Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offences

punishable under Sections 103(1) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

2. The First Information Report indicates that, in the intervening night of

01.04.2026 and 02.04.2026, Mahendra, a person suffering from mental

illness, entered the house of the present applicant and assaulted her with a

stick. The allegation in the First Information Report is that, being agitated by

the said assault, the applicant and other members of her family tied Mahendra

to a cement pole and thereafter assaulted him, which resulted in his death.

3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is herself

a victim of the crime, having sustained injuries which required hospitalization

925 ABA 1609.2026.odt 1 of 3
for at least one month. He drew the attention of the Court to the medical

evidence on record, indicating that the applicant had suffered a fracture in the

temporoparietal region along with hemorrhage. It is his submission that,

considering the nature of the assault upon the applicant with a stick, it would

be practically impossible for her to have thereafter assaulted the deceased. It

is further submitted that the applicant is working as an ASHA Worker, has no

criminal antecedents, and, therefore, her liberty deserves to be protected.

4. Learned APP opposed the application, contending that the offence in

question occurred within the residential premises of the applicant and that,

having regard to the fact that the deceased died on account of multiple

injuries, as reflected in the post-mortem report, this is not a fit case for grant

of pre-arrest bail to the applicant.

5. No doubt, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. However, it is

not in dispute that the deceased had entered the house of the applicant at

night hours. He admittedly assaulted the applicant with a stick. There is

medical evidence on record indicating that serious injuries were caused to the

applicant in the said assault. She was required to remain hospitalized for a

period of one month.

6. Now that the charge-sheet has been filed, custodial interrogation of the

925 ABA 1609.2026.odt 2 of 3
applicant is not necessary. Considering the nature of the injuries caused to the

applicant, this Court finds substance in the contention of the learned Advocate

for the applicant that it would not have been possible for her to have

assaulted the deceased. Having regard to the said facts, the applicant's liberty

deserves to be protected. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

(i) Application is allowed.

(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with
Crime No. 65 of 2026, registered with Molgi Police Station,
District Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections
103(1) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, she shall be
released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the
like amount.

(iii) She shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iv) She shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.

(v) She is further directed to cooperate the investigating
agency for further investigation.

7. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to
the concerned Police Station.

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp

925 ABA 1609.2026.odt 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…