Bombay High Court
SAROJANI WIRBABU BATHULAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
Because the prosecution case rests only on suspicion without a victim or concrete act and the accused are women entitled to the special bail provision under Section 480 of the BNSS, bail must be granted.
Summary
The High Court considered bail applications filed by three women accused of offences under Section 310(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for alleged participation in a theft conspiracy at a temple crowd. The prosecution’s case relied solely on an informant’s observation of ‘suspicious’ behaviour and the recovery of blades and cash, with no victim reporting an actual theft. The court noted the lack of concrete evidence of an overt act and emphasized the principle of personal liberty. It also highlighted the special provision under Section 480 of the BNSS, which favours bail for women irrespective of the offence’s nature. Consequently, the court granted regular bail to the applicants with conditions, dismissed the withdrawn application, and allowed the unpressed application to be re‑filed.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of suspicion and recovered items as basis for denying bail under Section 310(4).
- The applicability of Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita granting special bail consideration to women.
- Whether the risk of evidence tampering or repeat offence justifies continued pre‑trial detention.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(4), 480
Subjects
- bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 310
- Section 480
- women
- suspicion
- pre‑trial detention
- common intention
- theft
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:5570
981 BA No.182.2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 182 OF 2026
SAROJANI WIRBABU BATHULA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pratap B. Vikhe
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
...
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 91 OF 2026
PRIYANKA MANIKANATH UPPU AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ajit B. Chormal
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2026
SHRINIWAS GOPPAYYA ITTA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pratap B. Vikhe
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 189 OF 2026
DURGA LAJAR CHALLA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Pratap B. Vikhe
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
***
981 BA No.182.2026
-2-
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 6th February, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicants have approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 01.01.2026 bearing Crime
No. 01 of 2026 registered with Shirdi Police Station, Dist.
Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under Sections 310(4) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution case asserts that in anticipation of the
New Year celebrations beginning at midnight on 31.12.2025, an
event known to draw thousands of devotees to the Shri Saibaba
Temple, superior officers directed the informant to lead a security
detail focused on preventing pick-pocketing and theft. At
approximately 13:00 hours on 01.01.2026, while patrolling the
vicinity of Temple Gate No. 2, the informant noticed a group of
three men and three women whose behaviour appeared suspicious.
Following a period of close observation, the informant determined
that the individuals were conducting reconnaissance and repeatedly
ingressing and egressing the darshan queue without actually
offering prayer. Convinced that the group intended to exploit the
dense crowd to commit theft, the informant intervened and
981 BA No.182.2026
-3-
detained one man and two women, later identified as Srinivas
Gopayya Itta, Sarojini Veerbabu Bathula, and Durga Lajar Challa,
though two unidentified men and one woman successfully escaped
into the crowd during the encounter.
3. Following the detention, a search resulted in the
recovery of blades, a cutter, and currency, all of which were seized
under a panchnama. Consequently, on the strength of these
observations and the recovered evidence, the FIR was lodged.
4. The learned counsel for applicants in Bail Application
No. 185/2026, on instruction seeks withdrawal of the application.
Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn,
with liberty to approach concerned Court part filing of the charge-
sheet.
5. So far as Bail Application No. 91 of 2026 is concerned,
the learned counsel for applicants, not pressed the application to
the extent of applicant No. 2. Accordingly, the Bail Application No.
91 of 2026 stands dismissed as ‘not pressed’ as against applicant
No. 2, with liberty to present the application before the concerned
Court part filing of the charge-sheet.
6. The learned counsel for the applicants (female accused)
981 BA No.182.2026
-4-
submits that the the entire case against the applicants is based on
mere suspicion and a strained interpretation of presence in a public
place. The prosecution’s narrative relies heavily on the informant's
subjective observation of "suspicious" behaviour in a crowded
religious setting, which, by itself, does not constitute a criminal act.
The learned counsel further submits that the applicants are woman
and as such, entitled to the beneficial consideration of the court
under the proviso to Section 480 of the BNSS. Therefore, prayed
that the application be allowed.
7. The learned APP opposed the application, submitting
that the crime is serious in nature and that there is sufficient
material on record to establish the complicity of the applicants. If
the applicants are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of
tampering with the prosecution evidence or repetition of offence of
similar nature. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application be
rejected.
8. Having considered the submissions of both the sides
and perusing the material on record, it is necessary to evaluate the
gravity of the allegations against the principles of personal liberty.
The prosecution case prima facie rests primarily on the
observations of the informant regarding the suspicious movements
981 BA No.182.2026
-5-
of the applicants and the subsequent recovery of certain articles.
However, at this stage, it is pertinent to note that no victim has
come forward to report an actual theft, nor is there any evidence of
an overt act that resulted in the loss of property.
9. Prima facie, the accusation of "common intention" to
commit theft appears to be an inference drawn from the applicants’
presence in a crowded darshan queue, a circumstance that, without
further corroboration, does not conclusively establish criminal
culpability.
10. In view of the fact that the applicants are women, they
are entitled to the special provided under section 480 of the BNSS,
which permits the grant of bail regardless of the nature of the
offence in certain circumstances. Considering that the investigation
is ongoing and the trial is likely to take time, their continued
detention would amount to pre-trial punishment.
11. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(I) Bail Applications No. 182 of 2026, 189 of 2026 and
91 of 2026 are allowed.
(II) Bail Applications No. 185 of 2026 is dismissed as
withdrawn, with liberty to approach concerned Court
part filing of the charge-sheet.
981 BA No.182.2026
-6-
Bail Applications No. 91 of 2026 is dismissed as ‘not
pressed’ as against applicant No. 2 with liberty to
approach concerned Court after filing of the charge-
sheet.
(III) Applicants – Sarojani Wirbabu Bathula, Durga
Lajar Challa and Priyanka Maniknath Uppu be
released on regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.
50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local
solvent sureties in the like amount, in Crime No. 01 of
2026 registered with Shirdi Police Station, Dist.
Ahilyanagar for the offences punishable under
Sections 310(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, on the following conditions :-
(a) The applicants shall attend each and every date of
the Trial Court unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
The applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of
concerned Police Station till conclusion of the trial.
(c) The applicants shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card
to the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses
and phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(d) Breach of any of the conditions by the applicants
would entail the cancellation of the bail.
(IV) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…