Bombay High Court

MADHURI RAMCHANDRA PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution has not made a prima facie case and parity with co‑accused applies.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, considered bail application No.825 of 2026 filed by Madhuri Ramchandra Pawar, accused of conspiring with three co‑accused to murder her husband. The prosecution alleged that Pawar had an illicit relationship with accused No.1, transferred Rs 10,000 to him, and together with the others planned and executed the killing, relying mainly on circumstantial evidence, call‑detail records and financial transactions. The defence argued that the case against her is purely circumstantial, there is no direct evidence, and that the three co‑accused had already been released on bail, invoking the principle of parity. The State contended that Pawar was the principal conspirator and therefore should not be afforded the same treatment as the other accused. After examining the charge‑sheet and noting the absence of any eye‑witness, the Court held that the prosecution had not made a prima facie case warranting denial of bail and that parity applied. Consequently, the Court granted bail on personal recognizance with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case for denial of bail on the basis of circumstantial evidence
Whether the principle of parity entitles the applicant to bail when co‑accused have been released
Whether the applicant’s alleged role as the principal conspirator precludes grant of bail

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 106(1), 125(a), 125(b), 281, 3(5), 49, 61(2)

Subjects

bail
circumstantial evidence
parity
conspiracy
murder
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
personal recognizance bond
high court
Aurangabad

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23853

942-BA-825-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

942 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 825 OF 2026

Madhuri Ramchandra Pawar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
...
Mr. Abhijit More for the Applicant.
Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for the State.
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 17 JUNE 2026

P. C.:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By the present application, the applicant seeks her release on bail in

connection with Crime No.220 of 2025 registered with Dhoki Police Station,

Dist. Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 49, 61(2),

103(1), 106(1), 125(a), 125(b), 281 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

3. The facts of the prosecution case are such that the applicant was

having illicit relation with accused No.1 Parmeshwar Nawale and as the

husband of the applicant notice the same, she along with three accused

conspired to eliminate her husband. The accused Nos.1 to 3 executed the

same.

4. Mr. More, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire

Shubham Page 1 of 5
942-BA-825-2026.doc

case is based on the circumstantial evidence, CDR and financial transactions

between accused no.1. There are circumstances that the Applicant had

transferred Rs.10,000/- to accused No.1 for giving the said amount to the

deceased and they were the part of the conspiracy. Therefore, he submits

that barring all this, there are no any other direct or indirect evidence to

connect the Applicant with the said offence. He further submits that the

other three accused against whom allegations made that they executed the

conspiracy and they eliminated the husband of the present Applicant are

released on bail by this Court in Bail Application Nos.2496 of 2025, 2479 of

2025 and 328 of 2026. Therefore on the ground of parity he claims that the

Application be allowed.

5. Per contra Mr. Kotecha, learned APP strongly opposed for granting the

bail by contending that role of the applicant is different that the accused

who are released on bail by this Court. He submits that the Applicant is the

main accused who conspired to eliminate the applicant’s husband as she was

having illicit relation with accused No.1. As the husband got the knowledge

about this illicit relationship, the applicant eliminated her husband. He

further submits that considering the role attributed to the applicant and the

role attributed to the other accused are different and therefore the applicant

is not entitled to parity.

6. He further relied upon the statement of the daughter of the Applicant

and the deceased by contending that she has specifically stated that the

Shubham Page 2 of 5
942-BA-825-2026.doc

accused No.1 was visiting the house of the deceased in absence of the

deceased. Therefore he submits that the prosecution has collected the

substantial evidence against the applicant. He further relied upon the CDR

and financial transactions between the applicant and accused No.1.

Therefore he submits that though the case is based on circumstantial

evidence but it completes the chain of circumstances. Therefore on these

grounds he prayed for rejection of the bail.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone

through the charge-sheet and the orders passed by this Court in Bail

Application Nos.2496 of 2025, 2479 of 2025 and 328 of 2026. As per the

prosecution case the applicant was having illicit relation with accused No.1.

She along with other three accused conspired to eliminate her husband, only

because the deceased had noticed that she had illicit relation with accused

No.1. Except these, there are no other circumstances pointing towards prima

facie involvement of applicant. As regards the CDR report and other

transactions are concerned, the same can be dealt with at the time of the

trial. The fact is that there is no any eye witness to the said incident and

when the case is based on the circumstantial evidence this Court has to

consider whether prima facie case is made out for grant of bail or not. More

particularly, as per the prosecution, the other three accused who executed

the conspiracy and eliminated the husband of the applicant were released on

bail. Therefore, on the same set of evidence the applicant is entitled to

Shubham Page 3 of 5
942-BA-825-2026.doc

benefit of parity. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

I. The application is allowed.

II. Applicant – Madhuri Ramchandra Pawar be released on bail in

connection with Crime No.220 of 2025 registered with Dhoki Police Station,

Dist. Dharashiv for the offences punishable under Sections 49, 61(2),

103(1), 106(1), 125(a), 125(b), 281 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023, on executing a Personal Recognizance Bond of Rs.15,000/-

(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount,

to the satisfaction of Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and

tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner.

(b) The applicant shall attend the trial on each and every date unless

exempted by the Trial Court.

when required by the Investigating Officer for further investigation, if

any.

(d) In case of breach of any conditions by the applicant, it shall be

open for the prosecution to move before this Court for cancellation of

bail.
Shubham Page 4 of 5
942-BA-825-2026.doc

III. Needless to state that the observations made herein are prima facie

in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present bail application.

The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in

this order while deciding the case on its own merits.

[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

Shubham Page 5 of 5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…