PRIYANKA VINOD BHAGATversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42080




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                             923 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2026

                                      PRIYANKA VINOD BHAGAT
                                               VERSUS
                           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                   ...
           Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Appellant
           Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the Respondent/State
           Mr. P. R. Jagatkar h/f Mr. A. A. Phad, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                                                       CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                       DATED      : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    Appellant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2025,

           registered with Kinwat Police Station, District Nanded for the offence

           punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(c), 238(a), 61(2), 140(1) of Bharatiya

           Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(2), 3(v) of the Scheduled Caste and

           Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.


           2.    In short, it is the case of the prosecution that, in the intervening night of

           29.08.2025 and 30.08.2025, the deceased, who was the husband of the

           present appellant , was killed by the co-accused by pushing him into the river

           and thereby committing his murder. During the course of investigation, it was

           revealed that the present appellant was allegedly having illicit relations with



           923 APEAL 210.2026.odt                                                       1 of 5
the main accused. Statements of the sister of the deceased were recorded in

order to substantiate the said allegation. It is the case of the prosecution that

the appellant , in collusion with the co-accused, committed the murder of the

deceased for two reasons, namely, her alleged illicit relationship with the co-

accused and a dispute regarding the money received from the sale of the

house.


3.    Learned Advocate for the appellant            submits that the present

application is for regular bail and that the appellant has been arrested on

18.10.2025. It is his submission that the evidence collected during the course

of investigation does not disclose any concrete material to establish the

involvement of the appellant in the crime. It is further submitted that the

statements of the sisters of the deceased were recorded belatedly and that, at

the first instance, they had not alleged any illicit relationship between the

appellant and the co-accused. Insofar as the reference to the call records

between the appellant and the co-accused during the intervening night of

29.08.2025 and 30.08.2025 is concerned, it is submitted that the charge-sheet

itself indicates that, on earlier occasions also, the appellant     and the co-

accused used to engage in several calls, including during odd hours.

Therefore, the call records pertaining to the concerned date cannot, by

themselves, be treated as incriminating. It is further submitted that the



923 APEAL 210.2026.odt                                                     2 of 5
appellant   is a lady and, in the absence of any evidence beyond mere

suspicion, she cannot be kept in custody.


4.    Learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant opposed the grant

of bail to the appellant. It is their contention that the circumstances brought

on record clearly indicate the involvement of the appellant in the crime. The

first such circumstance is the misleading statement made by the appellant

while lodging the missing complaint as well as the statement recorded prior to

her arrest. It is further argued that there was a motive for the appellant to

commit the murder of her husband, as she was allegedly in an illicit

relationship with the co-accused and there was also a dispute regarding the

money received from the sale of the house. It is further contended that,

despite the fact that her husband had not returned home, the appellant failed

to lodge a missing complaint for four days. Reliance is also placed upon the

call records, which indicate that, during the intervening night of 29.08.2025

and 30.08.2025, as many as 28 calls were exchanged between the appellant

and the co-accused. According to the learned APP and learned Advocate for

the informant, the said circumstance is sufficient to establish the complicity of

the appellant in the crime.


5.    This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In order to deny bail to

an accused, there has to be material collected during the course of


923 APEAL 210.2026.odt                                                     3 of 5
investigation which goes beyond mere suspicion. Insofar as the statements

regarding the alleged illicit relationship between the appellant and the co-

accused are concerned, the same, at this stage, only raise suspicion against the

appellant . The only material sought to be relied upon, which can prima facie

be termed as incriminating, is the exchange of 28 calls between the appellant

and the co-accused during the intervening night of 29.08.2025 and

30.08.2025.


6.    In this regard, the charge-sheet itself indicates that there were 20 calls

on 01.08.2025, 25 calls on 02.08.2025, 5 calls on 03.08.2025 and 16 calls on

04.08.2025, including during night time/odd hours. Thus, the exchange of

calls between the appellant and the co-accused on the fateful day, considered

in the backdrop of their previous calling pattern, cannot, at this stage, be

treated as an incriminating circumstance. It is not the case of prosecution that

appellant had committed the murder or was present of the place of murder of

the deceased.

Excluding the said material, what remains against the appellant, prima facie,

is suspicion. Merely on the basis of suspicion, the appellant cannot be kept in

custody during the pendency of the trial. The appellant        has no criminal

antecedents. Hence, the following order:




923 APEAL 210.2026.odt                                                    4 of 5
                                     ORDER

            (i)     Appeal is allowed.
            (ii)    Appellant in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2025,
            registered with Kinwat Police Station, District Nanded for the
            offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(c), 238(a),
            61(2), 140(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections
            3(2), 3(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
            (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shall be released on bail on
            furnishing PB and SB 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.

8.    These observations are prima facie in nature, and the Trial Court is
not bound by the same.


                                                        ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




923 APEAL 210.2026.odt                                                       5 of 5