'Serious incriminating circumstances' says Bombay high court; denies bail to woman convicted in Kirti Vyas 2018 murder case pending appeal

MUMBAI: Observing there were “sufficiently serious incriminating circumstances’’ against a woman convicted in a 2018 murder case of Kirti Vyas, a salon executive, the Bombay High Court on July 7 denied her bail pending her appeal.

Khushi Sahjwani filed an appeal last year against her May 28, 2024, conviction by the Sessions Court, in which she sought bail pending the disposal of her challenge.Justices S V Kotwal and S C Chandak, after hearing her counsel Yug Chaudhry and special public prosecutor A M Chimalkar, said, “Considering the gravity of the offence and the seriously incriminating nature of the evidence brought on record, we are not inclined to grant bail to the Applicant.’’ The trial court convicted her and the original main accused, Siddhesh Tamhankar, for the offences and sentenced them to life imprisonment, with a set-off for the term undergone in prison as under-trial prisoners during the probe and the trial.

Sahjwani was arrested on May 4, 2018, and released on bail during the trial by an order of the Supreme Court on July 2, 2021. She was taken into custody on May 28 last year when the judgment was pronounced by the trial court.

Since then, she is in custody. The victim, Kirti Vyas, was her colleague, a finance manager at a salon in a Mumbai suburb, at Andheri. The detailed High Court order copy was made available on Saturday.The prosecution case is that Vyas was working as the Chief Finance Officer in a private limited company. Tamhankar was her assistant, and the appellant was in charge of the academy run by the company in charge of training their employees.

On February 14, 2018, Vyas allegedly asked Tamhankar to improve his performance at work, and the prosecution alleged that he conspired with Sahjwani, who he allegedly was close to, to eliminate Vyas.

The prosecution alleged that they picked her up in a car, offering to drop her at Andheri, but committed the crime between Grant Road and Mumbai Central, put her body in the car boot, and dumped it in a nala in Mahul. “The applicant (Sahjwani) was driving the car,’’ the public prosecutor said.The defence counsel argued, “The case is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are not proved by the prosecution at all. They do not form a complete chain. Even individual circumstances are extremely doubtful and weak.’’ He pointed out that when “the car was searched thoroughly on March 19, 2018, and March 30, 2018. Importantly, on both these occasions, the police officers did not find any blood stains on the mats’’ but later on April 13, 2018, the car was searched again, and mats were seized; some blood was allegedly found.

He argued it was “planted’’ as DNA evidence merely said it matched “offspring of parents’’ and Vyas has a sister; it could be hers.The High Court in its order said, “It is not possible to accept the theory that it can be the blood of the sister of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this is the most vital piece of evidence against the Applicant.’’ The special public prosecutor Chimalkar, who opposed the bail plea, said police also had the Call Data Records (CDR), which showed there were 25 calls exchanged between the two accused on March 15, 2018, in the night.

The CCTV also shows she picked up Tamhankar at Dadar, and both travelled to Vyas’ house and undisputedly gave her a lift in the car at 9 am. Then they travelled to the house of the deceased.The High Court order notes that the “disputed facts are about whether the accused committed the murder in the car or whether, as the accused told their colleagues, the deceased got down near Reliance Mall between Grant Road and Mumbai Central because of heavy traffic.

She had shortly left the car.’’ The special public prosecutor said CCTV footage doesn’t show she alighted from the car.The High Court, noting it was a case of circumstantial evidence, said, “at this stage, it is not possible to discuss each of the circumstances in minute details.’’ The High Court recorded Choudhry’s submission of possible tampering of evidence regarding blood stains in the car and other arguments of weak evidence.

But rejecting the bail plea, the High Court observed, “The Applicant was residing at Santacruz. The accused No.1 (Tamhankar) was residing at Parel. Their office was at Andheri. They had no reason to go in the opposite direction in the South to Grant Road. This was apparently done to execute their plan.

’’“The (bail) application is rejected. However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. We again make it clear that all these observations are made only for deciding this application for bail and suspension of sentence,’’ the High Court directed.