Dismissed¶¶25

Parasram Satwaji Zalke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC13 Nov 2025BA/807/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; Parasram Satwaji Zalke v. State of Maharashtra; BA No. 807 of 2025; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; decided 13.11.2025 by Mehroz K. Pathan, J.; FIR Crime No. 113 of 2024, PS Tamsa, Dist. Nanded; offence under Section 103(1) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (death of wife Laxmibai); witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Dnyaneshwar, Sambhaji, Vishal, Bhagwan, Baban); gravity of offence; regular bail refused; legal aid counsel fees Rs. 10,000/-.

What did the court decide?

None; regular bail refused. ¶¶25

Parasram Satwaji Zalke Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:31173

¶2

987 BA NO. 807 OF 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 807 OF 2025

¶5

Parasram Satwaji Zalke VERSUS

¶6

The State Of Maharashtra

¶7

Mr. H. P. Jadhav, Through Legal Aid, Advocate for Applicant

¶8

Ms. D.S. Jape, APP for Respondent - State

¶9

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

¶10

DATED : 13.11.2025

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

The present applicant has approached this Court seeking regular bail in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 113 of 2024, dated 28.09.2024, registered at Police Station Tamsa, Tq. Hathgaon, Dist. Nanded, for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant – Dnyaneshwar Zalke and his friends Sambhaji Dhumale, heard the cries of the complainant’s mother – deceased Laxmibai, from the house. When the complainant entered the house, he saw the applicant – Parasram, husband of the deceased, coming out of the house. The mother was found lying inside with a weapon lying near

¶14

1/3

¶15

Jhs/

¶16

987 BA NO. 807 OF 2025

¶17

her. She was immediately taken to the hospital, where the authorities declared her dead.

¶18

It is the submission of the applicant that the complainant – Dnyaneshwar Zalke, is not an eyewitness to the incident and entered the house only after hearing his mother’s cries. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime. There is no material evidence collected by the prosecution in support of their case to bring home the guilt of the present applicant. It is the further submission that the applicant was arrested on 20.10.2024, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, further detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishable, which is deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, prays for release on bail.

¶19

As against this, the learned APP submits that apart from the complainant – Dnyaneshwar, there are other witnesses who have also seen the applicant coming out of the house after committing the murder of his wife – Laxmibai. The statement of witness Sambhaji corroborates the prosecution case. The learned APP further relies upon the recovery of weapon from the spot and seizure of the clothes of the accused. The statements of the complainant’s brothers – Vishal and Bhagwan, who are also the sons of the applicant, further support the prosecution case. The statement of Baban, the son-in-law of the applicant, is also consistent with the other statements on record.

¶20

2/3

¶21

Jhs/

¶22

987 BA NO. 807 OF 2025

¶23

Thus, there is sufficient material to indicate the applicant’s involvement in the offence, which is grave in nature and punishable with death or life imprisonment.

¶24

I have gone through the charge-sheet and the evidence collected during the course of the investigation. Apart from the statement of the complainant – Dnyaneshwar, there are statements of witnesses Sambhaji, Vishal, Bhagwan, and Baban under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which prima facie indicate the presence and involvement of the applicant – Parasram in the commission of the offence. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the nature of the offence, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant.

¶25

Hence, the Bail Application stands rejected .

¶26

Fees for the appointed counsel for the applicant are quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub – Committee, Aurangabad.

¶27

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )

¶28

3/3

¶29

Jhs/

Parasram Satwaji Zalke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasram Satwaji Zalke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bapu Shankar Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dheeraj Bharam Bhosle Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sumit Bihari Dilaware Vs the State of Maharashtra

Munna Satilal Pawara Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akash Kautik Khandale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chandrabhan Bhagirath Devraj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another