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 2026:BHC-AUG:23853 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 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 942-BA-825-2026.doc benefit of parity. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R 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. (c) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and 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 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