KOKILA SHALIKRAM DANDAGE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:37137
                                                -1-
                                                                    38-BA-1505-2026

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                             BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1505 OF 2026
              1.     Kokila W/o. Shalikram Dandage
              2.     Neha W/o. Kiran Taru
              3      Komal D/o. Shalikram Dandage                 … Applicants

                                Versus

              The State of Maharashtra                            … Respondent
                                               ......
              Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Vaibhav T. Amle a/w Mr. A. P. Gunge
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. K. K. Naik
                                                .....

                                           CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                            DATED : 17th AUGUST 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.          Heard learned Advocate for the applicants and learned

              APP for the respondent – State.


              2.          Perused the investigation papers.


              3.          At the outset, learned Advocate appearing for the

              applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application

              on behalf of applicant No.1 with liberty to approach the Trial Court

              afresh after filing of the charge-sheet.


              4.          Leave granted. The application to the extent of

              applicant No.1 stands disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as

              prayed for. Any subsequent application shall be considered on its

              own merits and in accordance with law.
                                -2-
                                                     38-BA-1505-2026




5.         Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are adult daughters of deceased

and applicant no.1. They were arrested on 14 th June 2026 in

connection with offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and

3(5) of BNS.    The prosecution case is that the deceased was

assaulted inside the residential house in which the applicants and

other family members were present. The complaint has been

registered by the cousin brother of the deceased, who have alleged

that, the harassment that was caused at the hands of present

applicants and other two minor daughters was reported to him

earlier by deceased. After he came to know about the death of the

deceased, he has lodged the complaint alleging that the present

applicants and other two minor daughters have committed the

murder of the deceased.



6.         The material presently placed before the Court shows

that the deceased had sustained several injuries and that blood-

stained articles and three wooden sticks were seized from the place

of occurrence. The nature of the accusation is undoubtedly serious.

However, at the stage of considering bail, it is necessary to

examine the material specifically attributable to each of the

applicants and not merely the gravity of the offence. Admittedly,

this is not a case of an eye-witness accounting independently and
                                 -3-
                                                       38-BA-1505-2026

describing the precise part played by applicant Nos.2 and 3. The

accusation of assault is substantially collective in nature. No

particular injury has been attributed to either of these applicants,

nor is any specific weapon alleged to have been wielded by either of

them. The articles relied upon by the prosecution were found at

the place of occurrence and were not discovered pursuant to any

statement made by applicant Nos.2 and 3.



7.         The prosecution has also placed reliance upon the

statements allegedly made by applicant No.1 during the course of

investigation. Such a statement, insofar as it contains a confession

made to a police officer, cannot be treated as a substantive piece of

evidence against either its maker or the co-accused, except to the

limited extent of discovery permissible in relation to a fact

discovered in consequence thereof. At this stage, the said

statement cannot, by itself, furnish a sufficient ground for

continued detention of applicant Nos.2 and 3, who are though

major, but of an aged 25 and 20 years, respectively.



8.         The circumstance that the occurrence took place within

the four walls of the house is relevant and may require an

explanation during the trial. Nevertheless, that circumstance does

not relieve the prosecution of its initial obligation to place prima
                                  -4-
                                                         38-BA-1505-2026

facie material indicating the individual involvement of the accused.

The principle concerning facts within the special knowledge of the

occupants cannot be invoked to fill a material deficiency in the

prosecution case or to attribute an identical role to every person

present in the house. The report further suggests that applicant

Nos.2 and 3 have continued to be in custody since 14 th June 2026.

They are stated to be young women and both are married.

Applicant No.2, in fact, also has a child aged three years. There are

no criminal antecedents against the present applicants.             The

material articles have already been seized and the statements of

the material witnesses have also been recorded. Though the

learned APP points out that the investigation is yet to be completed

and the charge-sheet is yet to be filed, still, I am of the opinion that

further custodial detention of applicant Nos.2 and 3 is not

necessary for any specific investigative purpose. The possibility of

influencing witnesses can be addressed by imposing appropriate

conditions.


9.            It is needless to mention that the observations made by

this Court in the present order insofar as applicant Nos.2 and 3 are

confined to the consideration of the present bail application. They

shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of

the prosecution case at the time of trial. Hence, the following order:
                                 -5-
                                                      38-BA-1505-2026




                                ORDER

(i)    The application insofar as applicant No.1 is concerned stands
disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to apply afresh after filing of
charge-sheet before the Trial Court.


(ii)   If any such application is filed, then the Trial Court shall
consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

(iii) The application insofar as applicant Nos.2 and 3 are
concerned stands allowed.


(iv) The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail in Crime
No. 185 of 2026 registered with Jafrabad Police Station, Tq.
Jafrabad, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections
103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on each
furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject
to the following conditions :

       a)   Until filing of charge-sheet, applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall
            attend the concerned police station as and when called
            by the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate in the
            investigation. Thereafter, applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall
            attend the Trial Court on every date fixed, unless their
            attendance is specifically exempted.


       b)   The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall not, directly or
            indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the
            informant or any prosecution witness and shall not
            tamper with the prosecution evidence.
                                     -6-
                                                              38-BA-1505-2026




          c)   The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall furnish their current
               residential addresses and mobile numbers to the
               Investigating Officer and the Trial Court within seven
               days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and
               attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written
               notice if further investigation is required.


          d)   The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall not leave India without
               prior permission of the Trial Court and, if they possess
               passports, shall deposit the same with the Trial Court
               within seven days of their release.


          e)   The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall not involve themselves
               in any offence of a similar nature while on bail.


          f)   Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
               prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.


          g)   All observations in this order are prima facie and
               confined to the decision of this bail application. The
               Trial Court shall decide the case independently on the
               evidence led before it.


(v)       The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.



                                           (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                  JUDGE

Tandale