KASHABAI DHONDIBA RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:32318-DB
                                              (1)
                                                              Cri. Application 1359-26.odt
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1359 OF 2026
                           IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255 OF 2026


           KASHABAI DHONDIBA RATHOD                 …..   APPLICANT

                 Versus

           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                 …..   RESPONDENT

                                               ….
           Mr. S. S. Palnitkar, Advocate for the applicant
           Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
                                               ….

                            CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                    VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                            DATE     : 31/07/2026


           ORDER ( PER : SANDIPKUMAMR C. MORE, J.) :


           1.    Heard rival submissions.


           2.    By this application, the applicant, who is the original accused

           No.3 in Sessions Case No.2 of 2024, is seeking suspension of her

           substantive sentence of life imprisonment, during the pendency of this

           appeal and also her release on bail.


           3.    As per the prosecution case, the present applicant, along with

           the other accused, on account of an earlier dispute, allegedly entered

           the house of the deceased on 10.10.2023 at about 7:00 p.m. At that

           time, the son of the informant, namely Vinod, was resting on a cot in
                                     (2)
                                                    Cri. Application 1359-26.odt
the courtyard. It is alleged that all the accused had come with the

intention of killing Vinod. Accordingly, accused No. 2, Pintu Rathod,

threw chilli powder into Vinod's eyes and accused No.1, Dhondiba,

inflicted a knife blow on Vinod's chest. It is further alleged that, at the

time of the assault, the present applicant caught hold of Vinod to

prevent him from escaping. Thereafter, accused No.4, Kalpana, also

threw chilli powder at the informant and his family members when

they rushed to the spot to rescue Vinod.



4.   Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though there are

eyewitnesses to the incident, the role attributed to the present

applicant is limited to allegedly holding the deceased by his hands. He

submits that the fatal knife blow was inflicted solely by accused No.1,

Dhondiba and therefore, there may be possibility of scaling down of

the offence of murder to the extent of this applicant.          It is further

submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody for the last

three years. Considering the limited role attributed to the applicant

and the prolonged period of incarceration, learned counsel prays that

the applicant be released on bail.



5.   On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the

submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, contending that

there is cogent evidence of eyewitnesses, whose versions consistently
                                   (3)
                                                  Cri. Application 1359-26.odt
corroborate each other with regard to the criminal acts committed by

the applicant and the other accused. According to the learned A.P.P.,

though the role attributed to the present applicant is limited to holding

the hands of the deceased, but her act facilitated accused No.1 in

inflicting the fatal knife blow on the chest of the deceased.           It is

submitted that the conduct of the applicant clearly demonstrates that

she shared the common intention to commit the murder of the

deceased, Vinod. As such, the learned A.P.P. prayed for rejection of the

bail application.


6.   Upon perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned

judgment, it is evident that the allegation against the present applicant

is that she caught hold of the deceased, thereby enabling accused No.1

to inflict a knife blow on his chest. However, the fact remains that it

was accused No.1 who actually inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased.



7.   To attract the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC,

the intention to cause death is a vital ingredient.           Under such

circumstances, it is yet to be seen from the evidence on record as to

whether the applicant was also having intention to kill the deceased.

Prima facie, the role attributed to the applicant appears to be confined

to holding the deceased at the time of the incident. Therefore, there is

a possibility that so far as the present applicant is concerned, the

offence may ultimately be scaled down from that of murder.        It is also
                                         (4)
                                                             Cri. Application 1359-26.odt
pertinent     to   note   that   the    applicant      has     already     undergone

incarceration for about three years and there is no likelihood of the

present      appeal   being   heard      in     the   near    future.       In    these

circumstances, having regard to the nature of the role attributed to the

applicant in the alleged crime, , we are of the opinion that she can be

released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. In view of the

same, we pass following order.

                                       ORDER

       (A)    The application is allowed.


       (B)    The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life
              imposed     upon         the     applicant/accused        Kashabai
              Dhondiba Rathod in Sessions Case No.2 of 2024 under
              judgment and order dated 13.03.2026 delivered by
              Additional Sessions Judge, Mukhed, District : Nanded,
              is hereby suspended during the pendency of this
              appeal.


       (C)    The applicant is released on execution of P.R. Bond of
              Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with
              one surety in the like amount.


       (D)    The application is accordingly disposed of.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)                          (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
       JUDGE                                             JUDGE
VS Maind/