Bombay High Court
RATNA MITHAILAL BARUDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHIVKUMAR DIGE
Holding
Bail was granted to the applicant on a bond of Rs 30,000 with conditions, pending trial.
Summary
The applicant, Ratna Mithailal Barud, sought regular bail in a case involving murder, attempted murder, assault, extortion, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy under multiple statutes, including the IPC and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. The prosecution alleged that she conspired with two accused to murder the father of her daughter, the informant, and argued she could threaten witnesses if released. The defense contended that she was not present at the crime scene, has no prior record, and has been in custody for over two years without trial progress. The court noted the need for evidence to prove conspiracy, the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and the lack of trial advancement. Considering these factors, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs 30,000 with one or two sureties and imposed conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or contacting witnesses. The order emphasized that the trial court would decide the case on its merits independently of the bail order.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder, conspiracy, and organized‑crime offences despite the seriousness of the charges
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention and lack of trial progress justify bail
- Whether the risk of witness intimidation warrants denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 4(25)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 120-B, 302, 307, 323, 34, 452, 506
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — s. 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2), 3(4)
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1)(3)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- organized crime
- pre‑trial detention
- witness intimidation
- Indian Penal Code
- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act
Judgment
21-BA-2868-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2868 OF 2025
Ratna Mithailal Barud ...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Aniket Vagal, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Ranjana D. Humane, APP for Respondent-State.
API- J. V. Dalavi, Nigadi Police Station, present.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 23rd JANUARY, 2026.
P.C. :
1. By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in
Crime No. 737 of 2023 registered with Nigadi Police Station, Pimpri-
Chinchwad, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323,
452, 506, 120-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections
4(25) of the Arms Act, Sections 37(1)(3) read wtih 135 of the Maharashtra
Police Act, 1951 and Sections 3(1)(i)(ii), 3(2) and 3(4) of the Maharashtra
Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999.
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR 2. It is prosecution’s case that on 7th December 2023, around
KADAM
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
10:15 am, accused Nos.1 and 2 barged into the house of the first
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.01.28
11:15:59 +0530
informant and murdered her father. The applicant is the mother of the first
Page 1 of 3
21-BA-2868-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
informant. It is alleged that on the say of the applicant, the accused Nos.1
and 2 murdered the deceased.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is a lady and she is behind bars for more than two years. The
allegation against her is of conspiracy. She was not present at the time of
the incident. She has no antecedents and requested to allow the
application.
4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant is the main
culprit. On her say, accused Nos.1 and 2 murdered the deceased. The first
informant is the daughter of the applicant. If the applicant is released on
bail, she may threaten the first informant and prosecution witnesses and
requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard all learned counsel, perused the charge sheet, and
documents produced on record. The applicant is a lady. She is behind bars
for more than two years. There is no progress in the trial. The allegations
are of conspiracy, and to prove them, evidence is required. It may take
time to conclude the trial. Considering these facts, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
(i) The applicant be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 737 of 2023
Page 2 of 3
21-BA-2868-2025 (CR).doc
Shubhada S Kadam
registered with Nigadi Police Station, Pimpri-Chinchwad, on
executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and
when required.
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person
concerned with the case.
The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
6. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for
the purpose of granting bail and the Trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations
made in this order.
7. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…