Bombay High Court
FARHEEN MOHAMMED ABID MALLIKversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as there is no prima facie evidence of her abetment of the murder.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Farheen Mohammed Abid Mallik, who was charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged abetment in the murder of Raju Yadav. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, on her husband’s instructions, called the deceased to a flat and supplied a cold drink laced with a stupefying substance, after which the husband stabbed the victim. The defence argued that there was no material evidence showing the applicant called the deceased or participated in the murder, and highlighted her pregnancy, three children, and lack of flight risk. The court found the prosecution’s case against her to be prima facie insufficient and, considering her personal circumstances, granted bail with standard conditions. The bail order required a bond of Rs.1,00,000, sureties, regular attendance at the police station, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case of abetment of murder against the applicant under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder‑related abetment case given the nature of the offence and the evidence on record.
- Whether the applicant’s personal circumstances (pregnancy, children, health) satisfy the criteria for bail under the BNS.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- pregnancy
- surety
- court conditions
Judgment
HEMANT H.C.SHIV 913.BA2607.26.DOC
CHANDERSEN
SHIV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed by
HEMANT CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CHANDERSEN SHIV
Date: 2026.08.28 BAIL APPLICATION NO.2607 OF 2026
13:57:17 +0530
Farheen Mohammed Abid Mallik …. Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Ms. Anjali Awasthi, Advocate through VC with Mr. Afsar Ansari
and Aamir Khan for the Applicant.
Ms. K. T. Hiwrale, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Sharad Shankar Kumbhar, PI, Mumbra police station present.
CORAM: SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 27th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Applicant seeks her release on bail in connection with
C.R. No.I-235 of 2026, registered with Mumbra police station,
Thane for offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) on the report of wife of
the deceased-informant.
3. The prosecution case is that, Accused No.1/A-1 is husband
of the applicant. Informant is the wife of deceased-Raju Yadav,
who was working as a Supervisor/Security Guard in the buildings
named ‘Anaya and Star City’. The deceased used to collect
maintenance amounts from the occupants of the buildings,
provide flats there on rental basis, prepare rent agreements etc.
A1 and the applicant used to reside on rent in a flat in Star City, A-
Wing. Therefore, both the accused and the deceased were
acquainted with each other. It is alleged that, meanwhile, illicit
Page 1 of 5
H.C.SHIV 913.BA2607.26.DOC
relationship developed between the applicant and the deceased.
When A1 came to know about the same, he had expressed his
anger about the deceased before certain witnesses and told them
that he will take a revenge. It is alleged that, A1 then threatened
the applicant to help to kill the deceased otherwise he will divorce
her. Therefore, on 16th February, 2026 at about 10.30 pm, the
applicant called the deceased on 3rd floor of the building on the say
of A1 and caused him to consume cold drink mixed with
stupefying substance. Consequently, the deceased lost his
conscious and then, A1 assaulted him by means of knife.
Therefore, aforesaid crime came to be registered and both the
accused were arrested. The trial Court declined to release the
applicant on bail.
4. Ms.Awasthi, learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted
that except allegation of purchasing cold-drinks from a nearby
shop through a known watchman of the society, there is no
evidence against the applicant showing that just before the murder
she had called the deceased at the spot on the say of A1 and thus,
abetted in the murder. As such, the applicant is innocent and
deserves to be released on bail.
5. In reply, Ms.Hiwrale, learned APP submitted that without
help of the applicant it was not possible for A1 to call the deceased
at the spot. The material on record show that just before the
murder, quarrel was going on between A1 and the deceased. The
applicant and A1 were calling the witness Mohd. Firoz Tahir
Hussain Shaikh on the 3rd floor as quarrel was going on between
A1 and the deceased. Till commission of the murder, the applicant
was present at the spot. Therefore, there is a prima facie case
against the applicant and she is not entitled for bail.
Page 2 of 5
H.C.SHIV 913.BA2607.26.DOC
6. I have considered the submissions. Although it is alleged
that, the applicant had called the deceased at the spot, no material
is pointed to that effect from the record. On the contrary, in the
FIR it is narrated that the deceased had left his room on
16.02.2026, at about 10.30 pm, telling the informant that he was
going to play DJ at Thane.
6.1 No doubt, the statement of the Kamal Vishwakarma –
watchman of the society indicates that, at about 10.00 pm, the
applicant had told him to get cold drink and he purchased the cold
drink from a nearby shop and gave it to the applicant. From the
statement of witness Mohd. Firoz Tahir Hussain Shaikh it appears
that between 10 pm to 11.00 pm A1 and the deceased were present
on the 3rd floor and they were boozing. The applicant was present
there. Meanwhile, A1 went to the room of the witness Mohd. Firoz
Tahir Hussain Shaikh and called him on 3rd floor. But, said witness
did not go there. Then, the applicant called the witness on the 3rd
floor. At that time, the witness went there and saw that A1 and the
deceased were quarreling with each-other. Therefore, he came
down and suggested the applicant to go to her room. Thereafter,
the deceased was found murdered on 17.02.2026, in the noon
time.
However, there is no evidence showing that there was illicit
relationship between the applicant and the deceased. On the basis
of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, prima facie it cannot be
concluded that the applicant had abetted for the murder or she
participated in the murder. Ms.Awasthi, the learned Counsel
submits that the applicant is 8 months pregnant and she is in need
Page 3 of 5
H.C.SHIV 913.BA2607.26.DOC
of medical and home care. The applicant has three children. The
applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with prosecution
evidence.
7. In view thereof, the Applicant is entitled for bail. Hence,
following Order :-
(i) The Applicant – Farheen Mohammed Abid Mallik be
released on bail in aforesaid FIR C.R. No.I-235 of 2026
registered with Mumbra police station, Thane, on her
executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one
or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall mark her attendance at Mumbra
police station, Thane on 1st day of calender month, once in
three months between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till
conclusion of the trial, starting from 1st December 2026.
(iii) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
before the jurisdictional Court.
(iv) The Applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
against her.
(v) On being released from jail, the Applicant shall
furnish her contact number and residential address to the
Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
there is any change.
(vi) It is clarified that any observation made in the present
order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
Page 4 of 5
H.C.SHIV 913.BA2607.26.DOC
Application and should not influence the outcome of the
trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
the merits of the case.
8. At this stage, as requested by Ms.Awasthi, learned Advocate,
the Applicant is granted four weeks time to furnish the surety. Till
then, the applicant be released on bail on her executing a P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and depositing a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of furnishing the surety. On furnishing such
surety/ies, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the
Applicant shall be returned.
9. Bail Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
(SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)
Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…