Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1976 (BOM)

AFSANA MEHABUM DESAI AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

ABA/108/2026 · 2026-06-25

Shri Mehroz Ashraf Khan Pathan

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

501 ABA NO. 108 OF 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2026 1) Afsana Mehabub Desai 2) Sangita Parshuram Pujari Versus The State of Maharashtra and Another … • Ms. Aruna Pai, Advocate for the Applicants • Mr. N. B. Pawar, APP for Respondents – State … CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 25.06.2026 PER COURT : 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondents-State. 3. The applicants have approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.18 of 2026 dated 13.01.2026 registered with Karad Taluka Police Station, District Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 88, 238, 352, 351(2) and 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the allegations against them have been exaggerated only with a view to invoke stringent penal provisions and thereby oppose their claim Jhs/ 1/5 501 ABA NO. 108 OF 2026 for bail. The applicants are employees of Kranti Hospital run by Dr. Uday Thigle. Applicant No.1 was working as an Aaya and Applicant No.2 as a Staff Nurse. According to the learned counsel, neither of them had any role in the commission of the alleged offence and no specific overt act has been attributed to them. It is further submitted that the principal accused, Hindurao, has already been arrested and is in judicial custody, whereas his son has been granted interim protection by this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No.297 of 2026 by order dated 09.06.2026. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants were granted interim protection by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad on 03.02.2026, which continued till disposal of their anticipatory bail application on 17.02.2026. Immediately thereafter, the applicants approached this Court and, by order dated 24.02.2026, this Court continued the interim protection, which is still in operation. It is submitted that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, have fully cooperated with the investigation and are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the interim protection be confirmed. 6. Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposes the application. It is submitted that the applicants are involved in serious offences punishable with imprisonment for life. According to the prosecution, Jhs/ 2/5 501 ABA NO. 108 OF 2026 the statements of the victim and other witnesses disclose the active involvement of the applicants in forcibly terminating the pregnancy of the victim. It is further submitted that the applicants acted in connivance with the principal accused Hindurao and his family members and, therefore, their custodial interrogation is necessary. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the FIR as well as the charge-sheet. The applicants have remained protected pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 24.02.2026. During the subsistence of the said protection, the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed on 10.03.2026. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicants have misused the interim protection or have failed to cooperate with the investigation. 8. The material placed on record indicates that the applicants were working as hospital employees. The principal accused has already been arrested, while another co-accused has been granted protection by this Court. Considering the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to the present applicants, the fact that the investigation has culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet, the continued cooperation of the applicants during the investigation and the absence of any criminal antecedents, I am of the opinion that their custodial interrogation is no longer necessary. The apprehension Jhs/ 3/5 501 ABA NO. 108 OF 2026 expressed by the prosecution can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate conditions. 9. Hence, the following order is passed :- O R D E R i. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. ii. In the event of arrest of Applicants (1) Afsana Mehabub Desai and (2) Sangita Parshuram Pujari in connection with C.R. No.18 of 2026 dated 13.01.2026 registered with Karad Taluka Police Station, District Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 88, 238, 352, 351(2) and 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, they shall be released on bail on each furnishing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, on the following conditions :- A) The applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer at the concerned Police Station on every Saturday between 12.00 noon and 2.00 p.m. till the filing of the supplementary charge-sheet, if any, and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer. B) The applicants shall also cooperate with the investigation. C) The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner. Jhs/ 4/5 501 ABA NO. 108 OF 2026 D) The applicants shall furnish copies of their Aadhaar Cards and PAN Cards, along with their residential addresses, mobile numbers and particulars of two close relatives, to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same updated during the pendency of the proceedings. 10. Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions may entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted hereinabove. 11. The observations made herein are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present anticipatory bail application. The Trial Court shall decide the case independently on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. 12. In view of the above, the Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of. ( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. ) Jhs/ 5/5