IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 923 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2026 PRIYANKA VINOD BHAGAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ... Mr. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Appellant Ms. R. P. Gour, APP for the Respondent/State Mr. P. R. Jagatkar h/f Mr. A. A. Phad, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Appellant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2025, registered with Kinwat Police Station, District Nanded for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(c), 238(a), 61(2), 140(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(2), 3(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. In short, it is the case of the prosecution that, in the intervening night of 29.08.2025 and 30.08.2025, the deceased, who was the husband of the present appellant , was killed by the co-accused by pushing him into the river and thereby committing his murder. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the present appellant was allegedly having illicit relations with 923 APEAL 210.2026.odt 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:42080 the main accused. Statements of the sister of the deceased were recorded in order to substantiate the said allegation. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant , in collusion with the co-accused, committed the murder of the deceased for two reasons, namely, her alleged illicit relationship with the co- accused and a dispute regarding the money received from the sale of the house. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the present application is for regular bail and that the appellant has been arrested on 18.10.2025. It is his submission that the evidence collected during the course of investigation does not disclose any concrete material to establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime. It is further submitted that the statements of the sisters of the deceased were recorded belatedly and that, at the first instance, they had not alleged any illicit relationship between the appellant and the co-accused. Insofar as the reference to the call records between the appellant and the co-accused during the intervening night of 29.08.2025 and 30.08.2025 is concerned, it is submitted that the charge-sheet itself indicates that, on earlier occasions also, the appellant and the co- accused used to engage in several calls, including during odd hours. Therefore, the call records pertaining to the concerned date cannot, by themselves, be treated as incriminating. It is further submitted that the 923 APEAL 210.2026.odt 2 of 5 appellant is a lady and, in the absence of any evidence beyond mere suspicion, she cannot be kept in custody. 4. Learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant opposed the grant of bail to the appellant. It is their contention that the circumstances brought on record clearly indicate the involvement of the appellant in the crime. The first such circumstance is the misleading statement made by the appellant while lodging the missing complaint as well as the statement recorded prior to her arrest. It is further argued that there was a motive for the appellant to commit the murder of her husband, as she was allegedly in an illicit relationship with the co-accused and there was also a dispute regarding the money received from the sale of the house. It is further contended that, despite the fact that her husband had not returned home, the appellant failed to lodge a missing complaint for four days. Reliance is also placed upon the call records, which indicate that, during the intervening night of 29.08.2025 and 30.08.2025, as many as 28 calls were exchanged between the appellant and the co-accused. According to the learned APP and learned Advocate for the informant, the said circumstance is sufficient to establish the complicity of the appellant in the crime. 5. This is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In order to deny bail to an accused, there has to be material collected during the course of 923 APEAL 210.2026.odt 3 of 5 investigation which goes beyond mere suspicion. Insofar as the statements regarding the alleged illicit relationship between the appellant and the co- accused are concerned, the same, at this stage, only raise suspicion against the appellant . The only material sought to be relied upon, which can prima facie be termed as incriminating, is the exchange of 28 calls between the appellant and the co-accused during the intervening night of 29.08.2025 and 30.08.2025. 6. In this regard, the charge-sheet itself indicates that there were 20 calls on 01.08.2025, 25 calls on 02.08.2025, 5 calls on 03.08.2025 and 16 calls on 04.08.2025, including during night time/odd hours. Thus, the exchange of calls between the appellant and the co-accused on the fateful day, considered in the backdrop of their previous calling pattern, cannot, at this stage, be treated as an incriminating circumstance. It is not the case of prosecution that appellant had committed the murder or was present of the place of murder of the deceased. Excluding the said material, what remains against the appellant, prima facie, is suspicion. Merely on the basis of suspicion, the appellant cannot be kept in custody during the pendency of the trial. The appellant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, the following order: 923 APEAL 210.2026.odt 4 of 5 ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Appellant in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2025, registered with Kinwat Police Station, District Nanded for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(c), 238(a), 61(2), 140(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and under Sections 3(2), 3(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act shall be released on bail on furnishing PB and SB of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount. (iii) She shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly. (iv) She shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. (v) She is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation. 7. Learned APP for the Respondent/State to communicate this order to the concerned Police Station. 8. These observations are prima facie in nature, and the Trial Court is not bound by the same. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 923 APEAL 210.2026.odt 5 of 5