Bombay High Court
PATHAN SHAKER KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
Bail is granted to Rukhaiyya W/o Idris Pathan.
Summary
Idris Pathan and his wife Rukhaiyya were arrested in connection with the death of Fatima, alleged to be a homicide rather than suicide, under sections 103, 61(2), 238, 80, 85 and 115 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The bail application sought release for both, but the applicant withdrew the request for Idris. The court examined the FIR, statements, a seized pen‑drive, the inquest panchanama and post‑mortem findings, finding no direct incriminating material against Rukhaiyya and noting that the injuries suggested assault rather than hanging. While the evidence implicated Idris, the court held that there was insufficient basis to deny bail to the wife, especially considering her gender. Consequently, bail was granted to Rukhaiyya with conditions of a cash bond, surety, surrender of identity documents, and non‑interference with evidence, and the related criminal application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether there is sufficient prima facie evidence against Rukhaiyya W/o Idris Pathan to justify denial of bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the nature of the death (suicide vs. homicide) impacts the bail eligibility of the accused wife.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 115, 238, 61(2), 80, 85
Subjects
- bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- section 103
- section 61(2)
- section 238
- section 80
- section 85
- section 115
- gender considerations
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:15557
1 913 ba 390.26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 390 OF 2026
1. Idris S/o Illyas Pathan,
Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Navgaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Chha. Sambhajinagar.
2. Rukhaiyya W/o Idris Pathan,
Age : 35 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o Navgaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Chha. Sambhajinagar. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Shri Uddhav L.
Momale, Advocate for the Applicants.
Shri A. R. Kale, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent – State.
Shri Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the Informant.
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 999 OF 2026
IN
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 390 OF 2026
Pathan Shaker Khan .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Sudarshan J. Salunke, Advocate for the Applicant
Shri A. R. Kale, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent No. 1
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Shri Uddhav L.
Momale, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 10TH APRIL, 2026.
2 913 ba 390.26
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides.
2. After hearing the applicants for some time, when this
Court shown disinclination to grant bail to the applicant No. 1,
learned counsel for the applicants on instructions seeks leave to
withdraw the application to the extent of applicant No. 1. Bail
application to the extent of applicant No. 1 - Idris S/o Illyas
Pathan stands disposed of as withdrawn.
3. Applicants are seeking enlargement on bail in respect of
offence bearing Cr. No. 314/2025 registered with Paithan Police
Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhaninagar for the offences
punishable U/Sec. 103, 61(2), 238, 80, 85, 115 of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
4. Applicant No. 1 is arrested on 05.09.2025 and the applicant
No. 2 is arrested on 06.09.2025. Charge sheet is filed on
28.11.2025 against 05 persons. Applicant No. 1 is brother – in –
law of the deceased and the applicant No. 2 is his wife. It is
alleged against the applicants that Fatima was illtreated by the
accused persons physically and mentally. She was being
demanded money for business and was being persistently
harassed since April 2023. It was reported on 05.09.2025 that
she committed suicide. It revealed during the course of
investigation that she was done to death by strangulation. She
3 913 ba 390.26
was suspecting illicit relations of the accused No. 1 with the
applicant No. 2 and there used to be quarrels on that count. On
couple of occasions the members of the family and relatives tried
to settle the disputes. It is further revealed in the investigation
that daughter of the deceased Sidra disclosed immediately after
the incident that her mother was being killed by the accused No.
1 – Idris, which was video graphed by the brother of the
deceased.
5. In the above backdrop, learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh
submits that no role can be attributed to the applicant No. 2. No
specific allegations are made and no material is collected to show
her incriminating role. The seizure panchanama, contents of pen
drive and the statement of Shaker Abdul Kadirkhan Pathan
would show that it is the accused No. 1, who was responsible for
suicide. The statement of the minor recorded on 25.09.2025 is a
tutored version and cannot be relied upon. The offence U/Sec.
103 of the Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita is added due to the pen drive
submitted to the investigating officer. There is ample material to
show that in a night intervening deceased committed suicide by
hanging herself as Odhani was recovered.
6. Per contra, learned A. P. P. submits that the inquest
panchanama and injuries noticed during postmortem would
suggest that it is not a suicidal death, but she was being
assaulted. The statement of the minor recorded on 25.09.2025 is
4 913 ba 390.26
reliable and cannot be faulted at this stage.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Sudarshan Salunke additionally
submits that the family members were inside and it was not
possible to commit suicide. No material is discovered from the
spot and the spot panchanama does not show any signs of
hanging. The statement of Pathan Amer and Sahel Pathan are
incriminating.
8. I have gone through first information report as well as the
statements of the relatives of the deceased. The consistent
incriminating role can be attributable to the husband - Idris and
the applicant No. 1 – Iliyas. Though the applicant No. 2 is
attributed a role in a different context, no overt act on her part
are surfacing. The statement of the child witness was recorded
on 25.09.2025, which shows role of the applicant No. 1 along with
other persons. The seizure of the pen drive and its content
recorded on 25.09.2025 does not spell out any role of the
applicant No. 2. There is room to infer that the version
immediately after the incident appears to be natural and
probable, than one recorded after twenty days. Prima facie, the
material collected during the investigation does not show case of
suicide by hanging. The injuries on the dead body indicate
assault.
9. Applicant No. 2 is behind bars since 06.09.2025. She is a
woman, hence I am inclined to release her on bail. I, therefore,
5 913 ba 390.26
pass following order.
ORDER
A. The bail application is allowed.
B. Applicant No. 2 – Rukhaiyya W/o Idris Pathan shall be
released on bail in respect of Cr. No. 314/2025 registered with
Paithan Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhaninagar for
the offences punishable U/Sec. 103, 61(2), 238, 80, 85, 115 of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on condition of furnishing P. R.
bond and S. B. of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousands only) with
one solvent surety of like amount.
C. The applicant No. 2 shall not tamper with prosecution
evidence or contact with the prosecution witnesses.
D. The applicant No. 2 shall cooperate in expeditious disposal
of the trial.
E. The applicant No. 2 shall surrender her Aadhar and Pan
cards to the investigating officer.
F. Bail application is disposed of.
G. Criminal Application No. 999 of 2026 is disposed of.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/April 26
Checking your session…