Bombay High Court
TULSI YOGESH SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the circumstantial evidence did not specifically implicate the applicant, and therefore bail was warranted.
Summary
The High Court considered the bail application of Tulsi Yogesh Shinde, a 24‑year‑old mother of a 16‑month‑old child, who was accused as Accused No.10 in a case involving the assault and subsequent death of a victim by members of the Pawar and Shinde families. The prosecution relied on eyewitness statements and CCTV footage, which showed the applicant present at the terrace before and after the assault but did not attribute any specific role to her in the beating. The court examined whether the circumstantial evidence sufficiently linked the applicant to the crime and whether she posed a flight risk or risk of tampering with evidence. Finding that the evidence did not specifically implicate her and noting her personal circumstances, the court concluded that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the applicant was released on bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is sufficiently implicated by the eyewitness statements and CCTV footage to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of fleeing or tampering with evidence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the circumstances justify granting bail under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- circumstantial evidence
- CCTV footage
- flight risk
- tampering with evidence
- Maharashtra
- High Court
Judgment
3 ba 3243 of 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3243 OF 2026
Tulsi Yogesh Shinde .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Ritesh B. Kesarwani a/w. Mr. Subhash Hulgalkar and Mr. Shirish
Desai i/b. M/s. Hulyalakar and Associate, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent – State.
PSI Ghawate Chaitanya, Kothrud Police Station, Pune, present.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 18, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kesarwani, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr.
Nakhawa, learned APP for the Respondent–State.
2. The Applicant before me is 24 years old, having a 16 month old
child, and is in incarceration in the present crime, having been
arraigned as Accused No.10. According to the prosecution case, there
were about 22 to 25 persons of the Pawar and Shinde family who
committed the present crime of beating up the decreased victim with
fist and kick blows and a wooden log ( लाकडी दांडका). The case of the
prosecution is based upon the accounts of certain eyewitnesses, which
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH are recorded and appended to the chargesheet. The said witness
AHER
Digitally signed by
RAJESHRI
PRAKASH AHER
Date: 2026.08.19
20:02:31 +0530
statements, prima facie, do not throw any light whatsoever with regard
Rajeshri Aher
1 of 6
3 ba 3243 of 2026.odt
to the specific role of the Applicant in committing and or assaulting the
deceased victim. The CCTV footage, which has been produced and
relied upon by the prosecution and appended to the Application, prima
facie, shows the Applicant having gone to the terrace where the
deceased victim was being beaten by the family members of the Shinde
and Pawar families at 08:57 hours, and it is shown that 30 minutes
thereafter, at 09:10 hours, she had come down along with another lady
and one small girl. 15 minutes thereafter, she has again been seen
going to the terrace along with her child. Within 9 minutes thereafter,
the police had arrived at the scene of the crime. At the scene of crime,
the mother of the deceased victim had also arrived along with her
family members before that on being summoned by the family
members of the Shinde and Pawar families. There was friction, scuffle
and argument and beating of the victim which took place, pursuant to
which the deceased victim, who was in a conscious state, left the
terrace premises along with his mother, in a rickshaw and proceeded to
a private hospital. At the said private hospital, after preliminary
examination, he was advised to be taken to be to the Sassoon General
Hospital at Pune, where he was taken in an Ambulance. While he was
undergoing treatment at Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, the deceased
person unfortunately lost his life. The cause of the death was due to
Rajeshri Aher
2 of 6
3 ba 3243 of 2026.odt
internal hemorrhage caused to the internal organs of the deceased –
victim.
3. The case of the prosecution is based upon the eyewitnesses
accounts, which are appended from Page No. 131 onwards, and which,
prima facie, do not attribute or ascribe any specific role to the present
Applicant in the assault. The statement of the first informant at Page
131 also does not attribute any specific role to the Applicant, though
the said statement specifically states her presence. However, the said
statement categorically ascribes the role played by other family
members when the mother of the deceased–victim arrived at the scene
of crime. The CCTV footage panchanama, a copy of which is appended
at Page No.117, is relevant in the context of the present Application
argued by the learned Advocate. It has been described in detail, and in
fact very meticulously, the movement of each and every persons, as also
to the extent of identifying 13 out of the 22 to 24 persons who are seen
to be present on the terrace where the beating incident took place. The
motive and cause behind the same need not be mentioned by me here,
as it is not directly relevant to the present issue since the assault is
affirmed by eyewitness account. The Applicant before me is a 24 year
old mother of a 16 month old daughter, who has suffered incarceration
from the date of her arrest on 14th March, 2026, and has been in prison
for more than five months.
Rajeshri Aher
3 of 6
3 ba 3243 of 2026.odt
4. The entire Shinde and Pawar family resided in the said building,
and in view of a certain issue between the deceased – victim and the
daughter of Anil Shinde, the deceased – victim was called and beaten
black and blue on the terrace of their building. The CCTV footage also
prima facie show that the entire incident which took place on the
terrace was witnessed by not only the elders who were residing in the
building, but even small children who had come to the terrace after
hearing the commotion over there, and, thereafter, left. The case of the
prosecution qua the present Applicant before me being clearly
circumstantial, and the role of the Applicant attributed to her from the
various statements which are recorded, prima facie, makes out a case
for grant of bail. Even otherwise, the CCTV footage categorically
records that the Applicant, who had initially gone to the terrace, had
returned, along with a child in her hand. In that view of the matter, the
Applicant has made out a case for grant of bail, and I am inclined to
release the Applicant on bail. Therefore the Application is allowed. The
Applicant is, therefore, released on bail.
5. In view of the above the following order is passed:-
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 71 of 2026;
Rajeshri Aher
4 of 6
3 ba 3243 of 2026.odt
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only), with
one surety of the like amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at
Kothrud Police Station, Pune, once every month on the first
Sunday 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, from time to time, as
applicable; and
(viii) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of
bail granted to the Applicant.
Rajeshri Aher
5 of 6
3 ba 3243 of 2026.odt
6. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Rajeshri Aher
6 of 6
Checking your session…