(1) Cri. Application 1359-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1359 OF 2026 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.255 OF 2026 KASHABAI DHONDIBA RATHOD ….. APPLICANT Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….. RESPONDENT …. Mr. S. S. Palnitkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. G. A. Kulkarni, A.P.P. for respondent-State. …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 31/07/2026 ORDER ( PER : SANDIPKUMAMR C. MORE, J.) : 1. Heard rival submissions. 2. By this application, the applicant, who is the original accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.2 of 2024, is seeking suspension of her substantive sentence of life imprisonment, during the pendency of this appeal and also her release on bail. 3. As per the prosecution case, the present applicant, along with the other accused, on account of an earlier dispute, allegedly entered the house of the deceased on 10.10.2023 at about 7:00 p.m. At that time, the son of the informant, namely Vinod, was resting on a cot in 2026:BHC-AUG:32318-DB (2) Cri. Application 1359-26.odt the courtyard. It is alleged that all the accused had come with the intention of killing Vinod. Accordingly, accused No. 2, Pintu Rathod, threw chilli powder into Vinod's eyes and accused No.1, Dhondiba, inflicted a knife blow on Vinod's chest. It is further alleged that, at the time of the assault, the present applicant caught hold of Vinod to prevent him from escaping. Thereafter, accused No.4, Kalpana, also threw chilli powder at the informant and his family members when they rushed to the spot to rescue Vinod. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though there are eyewitnesses to the incident, the role attributed to the present applicant is limited to allegedly holding the deceased by his hands. He submits that the fatal knife blow was inflicted solely by accused No.1, Dhondiba and therefore, there may be possibility of scaling down of the offence of murder to the extent of this applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody for the last three years. Considering the limited role attributed to the applicant and the prolonged period of incarceration, learned counsel prays that the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the contrary, the learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant, contending that there is cogent evidence of eyewitnesses, whose versions consistently (3) Cri. Application 1359-26.odt corroborate each other with regard to the criminal acts committed by the applicant and the other accused. According to the learned A.P.P., though the role attributed to the present applicant is limited to holding the hands of the deceased, but her act facilitated accused No.1 in inflicting the fatal knife blow on the chest of the deceased. It is submitted that the conduct of the applicant clearly demonstrates that she shared the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased, Vinod. As such, the learned A.P.P. prayed for rejection of the bail application. 6. Upon perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned judgment, it is evident that the allegation against the present applicant is that she caught hold of the deceased, thereby enabling accused No.1 to inflict a knife blow on his chest. However, the fact remains that it was accused No.1 who actually inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased. 7. To attract the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the intention to cause death is a vital ingredient. Under such circumstances, it is yet to be seen from the evidence on record as to whether the applicant was also having intention to kill the deceased. Prima facie, the role attributed to the applicant appears to be confined to holding the deceased at the time of the incident. Therefore, there is a possibility that so far as the present applicant is concerned, the offence may ultimately be scaled down from that of murder. It is also (4) Cri. Application 1359-26.odt pertinent to note that the applicant has already undergone incarceration for about three years and there is no likelihood of the present appeal being heard in the near future. In these circumstances, having regard to the nature of the role attributed to the applicant in the alleged crime, , we are of the opinion that she can be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. In view of the same, we pass following order. ORDER (A) The application is allowed. (B) The substantive sentence of imprisonment of life imposed upon the applicant/accused Kashabai Dhondiba Rathod in Sessions Case No.2 of 2024 under judgment and order dated 13.03.2026 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Mukhed, District : Nanded, is hereby suspended during the pendency of this appeal. (C) The applicant is released on execution of P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount. (D) The application is accordingly disposed of. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VS Maind/