Bombay High Court
RENUKA NIKHL KHANNA @ JAKHARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court granted bail to the accused on the condition of a bond and compliance with specified safeguards.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a regular bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC and Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed by Renuka Nikhil Khanna, accused of murdering her husband under Section 302 IPC. The applicant had been in custody for over two years and suffered a serious spinal condition, for which temporary bail had previously been granted for medical treatment. The State argued that the seriousness of the charge and the imminent trial, with a limited number of witnesses, warranted denial of bail. The Court, noting the applicant’s infirm health, prolonged pre‑trial detention, and medical reports recommending physiotherapy over immediate surgery, found these factors sufficient to justify bail. Accordingly, the Court released the applicant on bail conditioned on a bond, regular reporting, and compliance with other safeguards, and disposed of the pending interim application.
Issues considered
- Whether an accused of murder under Section 302 IPC is eligible for bail under Section 439 CrPC and Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the applicant’s serious medical condition and prolonged pre‑trial incarceration warrant the grant of bail.
- Whether the pending trial schedule and limited number of witnesses affect the bail decision.
- Whether imposing strict conditions can safeguard the trial process while granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 439 CrPC
- Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- medical condition
- pre‑trial detention
- high court
Judgment
38. BA 1007-25 & IA 2292-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1007 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2292 OF 2026
Renuka Nikhil Khanna @ Jakhar .. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Satyam Harshad Nimbalkar a/w Mr. Harshwardhan M. Pawar
i/by Mr. Abhishek Ulhas Arote, Advocates for Applicant
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for State
Mr. Riyaz Sayyed, PSI, Wanwadi Police Station
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Nimbalkar, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.
Phad, learned APP for State.
2. This is a Regular Bail Application filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R. No. 573
of 2023 registered with Wanawadi Police Station, Pune for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short "IPC").
3. The Applicant before me is the wife of the deceased victim. She
is accused and charged with commission of murder of her husband.
1 of 6
38. BA 1007-25 & IA 2292-26.odt
The incident in question was preceded by a quarrel which erupted
between the two of them, in which the Applicant also suffered certain
injuries. Death of the victim husband occurred by he having received a
blow on the back of his head on he having been pushed and having
fallen down on some heavy sharp object.
4. The Applicant was arrested on 24.11.2023. She is 41 years old.
She has suffered incarceration of more than 2 years 10 months. She
was granted temporary bail on 17.04.2026 by this Court for a period
of three months for undergoing surgery on her spine due to spinal
problem / degeneration of her neck and back region. The report of
the Neurosurgeon which was submitted by the Applicant was duly
considered by this Court while granting temporary bail. The said order
for temporary bail came to be extended on a couple of occasions and
ultimately on 31.07.2026, the Applicant was directed to surrender,
which she duly did on 04.08.2026.
5. In the interim, it is prima facie seen that the Applicant did go in
for an opinion to have the surgery, but in view of physiotherapy having
been undertaken by her, she was advised surgery at a deferred date
due to satisfactory response to the physiotherapy undertaken by her.
6. The consultation report dated 15.07.2026 issued in the interim
has been also considered by the Medical Superintendent of Sassoon
2 of 6
38. BA 1007-25 & IA 2292-26.odt
General Hospital while giving a report to this Court. The said report
has also been considered by the Orthopedic Department Head of B.J.
Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital for giving the latest
medical report of the Applicant dated 04.08.2026. Prima facie reading
of the above report shows that the Applicant requires regular spinal
exercises for strengthening her back muscles at least twice a day,
physiotherapy supervision on a regular basis, and follow-up in the
hospital every four weeks. She has to avoid forward bending at all
costs and avoid lifting of weight of more than 5 kgs as stated therein,
which is certified by Sassoon General Hospital also. All this is primarily
because the clinical presentation acknowledges and states neck pain
and pain in the lower back of the Applicant's body, and more
specifically on the right side spreading to the gluteal region, which
gets worse in the morning and which leads to severe difficulties.
7. Though the learned APP would vehemently object considering
the report which was given in the interim and the latest report which
was called upon by this Court which has been placed on record dated
04.08.2026 on the ground that the Applicant is charged with murder
of her husband and the trial, though not having commenced, will
commence soon and will be over in the shortest possible time, I am not
inclined to accept the same. In all fairness, the learned APP submits
that there are 16 witnesses only to be examined by the Trial Court,
3 of 6
38. BA 1007-25 & IA 2292-26.odt
and not all of them will be examined, and at the highest only 10 to 12
witnesses will be examined and the trial will be concluded
expeditiously. Hence she would persuade this Court not to grant bail,
but expedite the trial.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned APP. In a
given situation where the Applicant had been a normal case, I would
have certainly agreed with the submissions made by her. However, in
the present case, it is primarily seen that the Applicant is having severe
physical difficulty. Previous orders of this Court which were passed by
both my predecessors show and certify this fact that her medical
difficulty has been taken into account either while granting temporary
bail or while extending the time of temporary bail.
9. It is also prima facie seen from the material placed on record
that the surgery which she is advised in April 2026 cannot be ruled out
in the event if there is no result in recovery, since the medical
examination prima facie shows and certifies that there is tenderness in
the para-spinal region of the Applicant.
10. In that view of the matter, considering the additional grounds of
the Applicant's present physical state as also the fact that the Applicant
is incarcerated for more than 2 years 10months pending trial, on the
ground of long incarceration of the Applicant and the Applicant being
4 of 6
38. BA 1007-25 & IA 2292-26.odt
an infirm woman, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail on the
following conditions:-:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with C.R. No. 573/2023;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five
only) with one or two sureties in the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the concerned Investigating
Officer once every month on the first Monday of the
month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if she does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of her current address and mobile contact number
and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any,
5 of 6
38. BA 1007-25 & IA 2292-26.odt
from time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
11. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in
the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the
submissions made and the material placed before this Court.
12. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
Pending Interim Application is also disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.09.08
20:23:34
+0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…