The Bombay High Court has ordered the release of a woman who has spent 20 years in prison in connection with the 2006 Pune surgeon kidnapping-for-ransom case, ruling that the Maharashtra government wrongly placed her in a category requiring 30 years of imprisonment before release. A division bench of Justices Sandesh Patil and M.S. Karnik passed the order on October 16, setting aside the state government's September 22, 2025 decision under its remission policy, Medical Dialogues reported on Wednesday, October 21.

The court noted that the woman had completed 20 years of actual imprisonment as of September 30, 2026, which amounted to 26 years after adding remissions. It held that the longer imprisonment category was “not correct” because she had been acquitted of murder and was convicted of kidnapping for ransom and other offences.

The High Court directed that she be released from Yerawada Central Prison in Pune, subject to conditions that she must not leave the country and must report to a police station once every three months. Related proceedings in the case remain pending before the Supreme Court. Hindustan Times has identified the woman as Deepti Devasthali, a former medicine student, and the surgeon as Dr Deepak Mahajan; her mother Leena, a lawyer, was the co-accused in the case.

A 2006 case: death sentence first, then acquittal of murder

The case dates back to July 2006, when the woman and her mother were accused of kidnapping a Pune-based orthopaedic surgeon for ransom. According to the prosecution, the two operated a private detective agency and allegedly lured the surgeon to a hotel room under the pretext of offering him an honorary position at a proposed charitable hospital. Investigators alleged that he was drugged and died of an overdose, after which his body was dismembered and disposed of at different locations — allegations the defence contested and on which the murder charge ultimately did not result in a conviction.

Police further alleged that the accused answered a call from the surgeon's wife, claimed he had been kidnapped and demanded a ransom of ₹25 lakh. The mother and daughter were arrested in July 2006 after police traced the extortion calls.

In December 2007, a Pune sessions court sentenced both women to death after convicting them of kidnapping and murder. On September 30, 2008, the High Court set aside their death sentences, holding that there was insufficient evidence to convict them of murder; it however upheld their convictions for kidnapping for ransom and the life sentences imposed for that offence, the Indian Express reported. Both women later challenged their convictions before the Supreme Court, while the state government contested their acquittal in the murder case; those petitions remain pending.

The mother was released on remission in May 2025 after serving 14 years in prison. The daughter then challenged the state government's decision to place her in the 30-year category, arguing that she had not been convicted of murder.

Why the court intervened on the remission category

An advocate appointed by the High Court to assist it argued that the longer imprisonment category could not apply to her because the murder charge had not resulted in a conviction. The state government opposed the plea, arguing that premature release was not an entitlement and that the classification was justified by the seriousness of the allegations and reports from prison authorities; it also cited alleged violations of prison rules by the mother and daughter.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations but said the remission policy could not be applied in a way that required a woman convicted of a lesser offence to serve longer in prison than a woman convicted of premeditated murder. Under the 2010 government resolution considered by the bench, women convicted of premeditated murder must serve at least 14 years of actual imprisonment and may qualify for release after completing 20 years including remissions. The judges also expressed reservations about repeated applications by the petitioner but said they would refrain from commenting on her conduct because her personal liberty was at stake.

With the 30-year classification set aside, the woman is to walk out of Yerawada prison under the reporting and travel conditions — two decades after a case that once ended in a death sentence became, in law, a kidnapping conviction with a murder acquittal.