Suresh Parmeshwar Bhilare vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Suresh Parmeshwar Bhilare vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 473 of 2024 (Sinhagad Road Police Station, Pune), given that investigation is over and the charge-sheet filed. +1 more

Court's answer

Having regard to the seriousness of the crime, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the Appellant's bail application.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie perusal of the record, evidence and witness statements shows the Appellant came to the spot with a knife, inflicted one blow, ran away, then followed the deceased and inflicted further blows; the PM notes disclose as many as 18 injuries on the deceased, including three stab injuries and one puncture injury, and this prima facie clearly supports the prosecution's case that the Appellant had intended to kill the deceased.

Key takeaways

All observations in the judgment are made on prima facie consideration of the material record only and shall not bind the Trial Court during the final hearing of the Appeal.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Rejection upheld. Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2026 (Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; R. M. Joshi, J.; decided 18 February 2026): Appeal by Suresh Parmeshwar Bhilare against the Trial Court's rejection of bail in Crime No. 473 of 2024, Sinhagad Road Police Station, Pune. Counsel for the Appellant argued that investigation was over and the charge-sheet filed, the appellant (arrested 26 August 2024) was unlikely to face early trial disposal, and the quarrel with the deceased gave him no motive to kill. The learned APP and counsel for Respondent No. 2 pointed to witness statements and PM notes indicating an intention to kill. Prima facie, the appellant came armed with a knife, dealt one blow, then followed the fleeing deceased and inflicted further blows; the PM notes record 18 injuries, including three stab injuries and one puncture injury, supporting the prosecution's case of intent to kill. Held: having regard to the seriousness of the crime, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting bail; the Appeal stands dismissed and any pending interim application is disposed of. It is expressly clarified that all observations are prima facie only and shall not bind the Trial Court during the final hearing of the Appeal.

51-APEAL-166-2026+.DOC

Shephali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3710 OF 2025 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2026

Suresh Parmeshwar Bhilare …Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr …Respondents

Mr Satyavrat Joshi with Samay Pawar, for the Appellant. Mr HJ Dedhia, APP , for Respondent No. 1-State. Ms Davindar Kaur Sabharwal , for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 18TH FEBRUARY 2026

PC:-

SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE

Digitally signed by SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE Date: 2026.02.24 09:36:50 +0530

This Appeal is against the rejection of bail in connection with Crime No. 473 of 2024 registered with Sinhagad Road Police Station, Pune.

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the investigation into the crime is already over and charge-sheet has been filed. It is his submission that the trial is not likely to be concluded in short period and in view of the fact that the Appellant was arrested on 26^th August 2024, this is a fit case of his enlargement on bail. He drew attention of the court to the First Information Report, so also, statements which according to him

Page 1 of 3

51-APEAL-166-2026+.DOC

indicate that there were quarrels between the deceased and the Appellant and considering the reason for the quarrel, it cannot be said that the accused/Appellant had any motiveto kill the deceased. On these other amongst submissions, he seeks bail.

Learned APP and counsel for Respondent No. 2 opposed the Appeal. They drew attention of the Court to the statement of witnesses as well as PM notes which indicate that the Appellant had intention to kill the deceased.

Prima facie perusal of the record, evidence and statements of witnesses obtained during the course of investigation indicate that the Appellant came to the spot of the incident with knife. Apart from the fact that he carriedthe knife, when he caused one blow on the deceased ran away from spot, he, however, followed him and thereafter inflicted other blows. The perusal of the PM notes indicate that there were as many as 18 injuries on the person of the deceased, out of which, there were three stab injuries and one puncture injury. This evidence prima facie clearly supports the case of the prosecution that Appellant had intended to kill the deceased.

Having regard to the seriousness of the crime, the Trial Court was justified in rejection of bail.

Hence, Appeal stands dismissed.

Pending Interim Application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Page 2 of 3

51-APEAL-166-2026+.DOC

It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are on prima facie consideration of the material record and the same shall not bind the Trial Court during the final hearing of the Appeal.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Page 3 of 3