Bombay High Court

MONALI RAHUL BARHATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The bail application was allowed as the applicant was not shown to have mens rea or common intention in the alleged offences.

Summary

Monali, the wife of co-accused Rahul Barhate, was arrested for allegedly supplying a pistol that Rahul used to fire at an informant and a deceased person during a dispute with employees of Vijeta Company. She is charged under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act and the Maharashtra Police Act. The applicant contended that she had no mens rea, no common intention with her husband, and was unaware of his intent to commit murder, emphasizing her dependent family responsibilities. The prosecution presented eye‑witness testimony attributing the act of handing over the firearm to her, but no material indicating collusion or motive. The court, finding insufficient evidence of a shared intent and noting her lack of prior antecedents, granted bail with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant’s act of supplying the firearm constitutes participation in the offences charged.
Whether there is sufficient evidence of common intention or mens rea on the part of the applicant.
Whether bail should be granted given the nature of the allegations and the applicant’s personal circumstances.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 3/25, 7/25
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109, 109(2), 111, 115(2), 118(1), 3(5), 351(3)
Maharashtra Police Act — s. 135, 37(1), 37(3)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
mens rea
common intention
firearm supply
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act
Maharashtra Police Act
gender
dependent family

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:19795
1 707 – 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 707 OF 2026

Monali W/o Rahul Barhate,
Age : 30 years, Occu. : Labour,
R/o. Rameshwar Colony, Jalgaon … Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,
Through MIDC Police Station,
Taluka and District Jalgaon … Respondent

…
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande
Addl.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. A.R. Kale

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 30.04.2026

PER COURT :

Heard both sides.

2. The applicant is seeking enlargement on bail in connection with Crime
No.788 of 2025, registered with MIDC Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the
offences punishable under Section 103(1), 109, 109(2), 111, 118(1), 115(2),
351(3), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under section 3/25, 7/25 of Arms
Act, under section 37(1), 37(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

3. It is alleged that applicant’s husband - Rahul, who is also co-accused, was
running a pan stall near Vijeta Company, which is run by Ahtesham Shaikh.
There were disputes between co-accused Rahul and the employees of the
company. The employees had requested their Manager Mohammad Afzal
Jalaloddin to intervene in the matter on 02.112025. Rahul called his wife i.e.
present applicant and obtained a pistol. He fired two bullets. Informant is injured
by one bullet and another bullet targeted the deceased Rajan. Applicant is
arrested on 04.11.2025. Charge-sheet is filed on 18.01.2026.

1/3
2 707 – 2026

4. It is contended that there is absolutely no overt act on the part of the
applicant except supplying the firearm to the accused no. 1. Applicant had no
mens rea or motive to eliminate either the informant or deceased. Applicant was
not aware as to exactly the nature of the quarrel on the relevant day. There is
reason to infer that she is not sharing any common intention and she did not
expect that her husband would go to such an extreme stage. She has two
children and parents to be looked after.

5. APP submits that there is incriminating material collected against both the
accused. There are number of eye witnesses to disclose the involvement. The
witnesses are independent and specific role is attributed to the applicant.

6. There is no dispute that applicant is a married woman and she has two
children and senior members in the family who are dependent upon her and her
husband. The only role attributed to the applicant in the episode is that she
brought a pistol and handed over it to her husband - Rahul who fired bullets at
the informant and the deceased.

7. No material is collected to infer that applicant was acting in collusion with
accused no. 1 and she had motive to eliminate either informant or the deceased.
There is reason to believe that she might not be knowing that her husband would
commit murder of the person concerned.

8. The investigation is over and no antecedents are reported against her.
Considering the nature of the allegations, I propose to grant relief to the applicant.

9. I, therefore, pass the following order :-

I] The Bail Application is allowed.

II] The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 788
of 2025, registered with MIDC Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for the offences
punishable under Section 103(1), 109, 109(2), 111, 118(1), 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under section 3/25, 7/25 of Arms Act, under
section 37(1), 37(3), 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, on following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall furnish P.R. bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty
Thousand only) with one solvent surety of like amount.

2/3
3 707 – 2026

(b) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or contact
with the prosecution witnesses.

(d) The applicant shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the trial.

(e) The applicant shall surrender Adhaar / PAN Cards, if any, to the
Investigating Officer.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

arp/-

3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…