Bombay High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Killing Deaf And Mute Husband In Connivance With Man She Was Allegedly In A Relationship With
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a woman accused of murdering her deaf and mute husband in alleged connivance with a man she was allegedly in a relationship with and another co-accused. The Court noted that the prosecution’s case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence and that the Applicant has been in custody since August 2024.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed, “It is a well-settled principle of criminal law that in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each link in the chain of circumstances so convincingly that they point only towards the guilt of the accused and exclude every other hypothesis of innocence.”
The Court added, “In the present case, the chain of events, as presented, may raise suspicion, but suspicion howsoever grave, cannot take the place of proof.”
Advocate Vivek Nishad appeared for the Applicant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Mahalaxmi Ganapathy represented the State.
Brief Facts
The Applicant was arrested in August 2024. According to the prosecution, she was allegedly in a relationship with one of the co-accused and, in furtherance of a conspiracy with him and another man, killed her husband. The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the Applicant and co-accused before witnesses, the motive based on the relationship, and the recovery of a rope and electric wire from a spot identified during custodial interrogation.
The Sessions Court had earlier rejected her application for bail. The Applicant, through a sign-language interpreter, moved the High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeking relief on the ground that the case was based purely on circumstantial material and that she had already undergone significant pre-trial detention.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that no direct evidence was available at this stage and that the prosecution case rested on three links, extra-judicial confession, motive, and recovery. The Bench noted, “Upon a prima facie consideration, it is evident that the case of the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence — consisting of (i) the alleged extra-judicial confession, (ii) the motive arising out of the alleged illicit relationship, and (iii) recovery of the rope pursuant to disclosure. No direct evidence of the incident is forthcoming at this stage.”
The Bench reiterated the settled legal position that suspicion cannot substitute proof. It accepted the argument that further detention of the Applicant, in a case where trial had not begun, would be excessive. “The Applicant has been in custody since 7th August 2024. The case against her is based solely on circumstantial material which requires detailed scrutiny during trial. In such a situation, further incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible in law”, the Court explained.
Holding that a prima facie case for bail was made out, the Court directed that the Applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The bail was granted subject to conditions, including that she shall not tamper with evidence, shall not influence any witnesses, shall remain present before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing, shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court, and shall not commit any offence during the pendency of the trial.
The application was disposed of accordingly.
Cause Title: Ruksana Arshad Ali Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (Bail Application: Bail Application No.868 Of 2025)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Vivek Nishad, Vishal Khetre, Ganesh Nagargoje, Siddharth Bhangle, Prakash Salsingikar
Respondent: APP Mahalaxmi Ganapathy
