Bombay High Court
SUVARNA SUDHIR KUMBHAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant on personal bond with conditions, as the evidence is insufficient to deny bail and humanitarian factors merit relief.
Summary
The applicant, Suvarna Sudhir Kumbhare, was charged under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for the alleged murder of her husband, whose post‑mortem indicated injuries suggestive of asphyxia. The prosecution’s case relied on the deceased’s sister’s testimony and the post‑mortem report, but no material directly linked the applicant to the act, nor was there evidence of the alleged paramour’s presence. The applicant had been in custody since April 2025, was pregnant at the time of arrest, and gave birth to a baby girl in the jail hospital two months prior to the bail hearing. The trial court had earlier rejected her bail application, prompting an appeal to the High Court. The learned judge noted the absence of incriminating evidence, the applicant’s lack of prior antecedents, and the humanitarian considerations of her recent childbirth. Consequently, the court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with surety conditions and imposed standard compliance directives. The decision is limited to the bail application and does not prejudice the trial court’s eventual determination of guilt.
Issues considered
- What factors justify granting bail in a serious offence under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- Does the lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to the alleged throttling warrant bail?
- Do humanitarian considerations such as pregnancy and recent childbirth affect bail eligibility?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 103
- murder
- humanitarian grounds
- pregnancy
- post‑mortem
- asphyxia
- criminal procedure
Judgment
2-BA-4869-2025.DOC
Shivgan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4869 OF 2025
Suvarna Sudhir Kumbhare ...Applicant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Kuldeep Patil, with Anay Joshi, Sumitkumar Nimbalkar,
Digvijay Kachare, i/b Saili Dhuru, for the Applicant.
Ms. Anuja Sunil Gotad, APP for the State-Respondent.
Mr. Bhoir, PSI attached to Dahanu Police Station, present.
CORAM DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.
DATED: 08th JANUARY 2026
PC:-
1. The Applicant seeks her release on bail in connection
with the C.R.No.0051 of 2025 dated 17 th April 2025 registered
with the Dahanu Police Station, Palghar for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’).
2. The story of the prosecution as narrated by the sister of
the deceased is that, her brother was married to one Yogita. In
2008, he got separated from her since there was marital
Page 1 of 8
th
08 January 2026
2-BA-4869-2025.DOC
discord between them. Thereafter, the deceased married the
Applicant. They have a daughter named, Drishti, who is 13
years of age, as on date. It is also narrated that the Applicant
was abused, physically and mentally by the deceased. He was
addicted to alcohol and always used to suspect Applicant’s
character and on that ground, used to beat her. The
prosecution case is that on 27th March 2025 at about 3.00
a.m., the Complainant received a message on her mobile
phone that the deceased had fainted and was unresponsive.
They rushed to his house and admitted him in a hospital.
However, he could not be revived and he died. The initial
observations of the Doctors as recorded in the certificate
issued by the Medical Officer, Sub District Government
Hospital at Dahanu, were that the death was caused due to
cardio respiratory arrest in a situation of alcoholic liver
disease. Thereafter, the Complainant, on 17 th April 2025,
received notes of the Post-mortem, summary of which
indicated that there were facial and perioral injuries, injuries
over neck and upper part of chest, pulmonary edema, froth at
Page 2 of 8
th
08 January 2026
2-BA-4869-2025.DOC
nose and all these injuries are suggestive of death due to
asphyxia probably due to smothering or throttling. Hence, the
First Informant made the complaint, pursuant to which, the
FIR was registered. Accordingly, the police arrested the
Applicant; her 14 year old minor daughter and another
accused, who is stated to be paramour of the Applicant.
3. The Applicant made an application seeking bail before
the Additional Sessions Court, Palghar. However, by order
dated 9th October 2025, her bail application was rejected.
Hence, the Applicant is before this Court for the reliefs as
prayed.
4. Mr. Kuldeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant, at the very outset, states that the Applicant was in
the family way at the time of her arrest and only 2 months
ago, she has delivered a baby girl in the jail hospital. On this
ground alone, on a humanitarian basis, the Applicant be
released on bail. Further, Mr. Patil, submits that apart from the
allegations of the Complainant, who was not even present at
Page 3 of 8
th
08 January 2026
2-BA-4869-2025.DOC
the time of incident, there is no other material to indicate that
the death of the deceased was caused by throttling by the
Applicant or her 14 year old daughter and another co-
accused, who is stated to be paramour of the Applicant.
Hence, Mr. Patil prays that the Applicant be released on bail.
5. Per contra, Ms. Anuja Gotad, learned APP representing
the State in the matter, submits that this is an offence under
Section 103 of the BNS, which is a serious offence and the
maximum punishment prescribed for the said offence is that
of death penalty. The Applicant is in custody since April 2025,
which does not reflect ‘long incarceration’. In these
circumstances, Ms. Gotad submits that the Bail Application be
rejected.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the record with their assistance.
7. Admittedly, there is no material on record to indicate
presence of the 3rd Accused, as alleged by the deceased’s sister
Page 4 of 8
th
08 January 2026
2-BA-4869-2025.DOC
to be the Applicant’s paramour, in the deceased’s house.
There is no material to establish, even if the Post-mortem
Report is taken to be the gospel truth, that it was the
Applicant who throttled the deceased. Admittedly, there are
no antecedents against the Applicant. Considering that the
Applicant is in custody since 18th April 2025 and has already
suffered incarceration for about 8-9 months and she has
delivered a baby just 2 months ago in the Jail Hospital, I am
inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail. Hence, it is ordered
as under:-
ORDER
i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on
executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with
one or two local sureties in the like amount;
ii) The Applicant is permitted to furnish
provisional cash bail of Rs.25,000/- for her release
immediately and file undertaking that she will
provide one or two sureties in the like amount of
Page 5 of 8
th
08 January 2026
2-BA-4869-2025.DOC
Rs.25,000/- within a period of four weeks after her
release, which shall be accepted by the Trial Court.
The Applicant shall provide the sureties as directed;
iii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court
concerned on each and every date unless exempted
by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;
iv) The Applicant shall also attend the Police
Station concerned once in a month on first Monday
between 11:00 a.m. to 02:00 p.m. till the charges are
framed;
v) If the Applicant has not deposited her
passport, if any, the Applicant shall deposit the same
with the Police Station concerned;
vi) The Applicant shall not leave India, without
the permission of the Trial Court;
Page 6 of 8
th
08 January 2026
2-BA-4869-2025.DOC
vii) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to
influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or
any person concerned with the case;
viii) The Applicant shall inform her latest place of
residence and contact number immediately after
being released and / or change of residence or
mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court
seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer
of the Police Station concerned;
ix) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct
of the trial;
x) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions
shall entail cancellation of bail.
8. Application is allowed in the above terms and is
accordingly disposed of.
Page 7 of 8
th
08 January 2026
2-BA-4869-2025.DOC
9. It is made clear that the observations made herein are
prima facie and are confined to this Application and the
learned Trial Judge to decide the case on its own merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made herein.
(Dr. Neela Gokhale, J)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.01.09
17:58:47
+0530
Page 8 of 8
th
08 January 2026
Checking your session…