Maroti Venkatrao Bhinge vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Maroti Venkatrao Bhinge vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant — convicted in Sessions Case No.58/2010 under Section 307 read with Sections 34 and 120-B IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life — should be released on bail during the pendency of his appeal (APEAL/962/2025). +1 more

Court's answer

This is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant to release him on bail during the pendency of the appeal; the application has no merit and is rejected.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the impugned judgment and prosecution evidence, the Bench is of the prima facie view that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and the conviction of the applicant is sustainable in the facts of the present case.

Key takeaways

The prosecution evidence was found corroborative: PW-1 (injured) deposed in terms of the FIR and was corroborated by the injury certificate (Exhibit-125) showing injuries on vital parts (neck and upper chest), by medical witnesses PW-12 and PW-14, and by bus driver PW-9 and conductor PW-11; the country-made pistol (Exhibit-1) was recovered from the applicant and the ballistic report confirmed it was fired just prior to its receipt for examination; further, the FIR was lodged on the date of incident.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail pending appeal — rejected. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench (Coram: Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, JJ.; order dated 20.04.2026) dismissed Criminal Application No.4784 of 2025 in APEAL/962/2025 filed by Maroti Venkatrao Bhinge, who stands convicted in Sessions Case No.58/2010 under Section 307 read with Sections 34 and 120-B IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Perusing the impugned judgment and the trial record (16 witnesses examined), the Bench formed the prima facie view that the trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and the conviction is sustainable: the injured PW-1 deposed in terms of the FIR and was corroborated by the injury certificate (Ex.125) disclosing injuries on vital parts (neck and upper chest), by medical witnesses PW-12 and PW-14, and by the ST bus driver PW-9 and conductor PW-11 who admitted him to hospital; the country-made pistol (Ex.1) was recovered from the applicant and the ballistic report confirmed it was fired just prior to its receipt for examination; and the FIR (Crime No.152/2009, S.307 IPC r/w S.27 Arms Act, Udgir Rural P.S.) was lodged on the date of the 28.09.2009 incident. Holding this not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, the Court found no merit in the application and rejected it. The applicant had undergone six months imprisonment during trial and was in custody since 29.11.2025. Counsel's contrary contentions (sole eyewitness status of PW-1, hostile panchas, expired Investigating Officer, alleged acquittal of accused no.2 under the Arms Act, and alleged delayed FIR) were noted but did not sway the prima facie assessment.

2026:BHC-AUG:18232-DB

1

4784.2025APPLN.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

30 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4784 OF 2025 IN APEAL/962/2025

MAROTI VENKATRAO BHINGE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gunale V.D. APP for Respondent/State : Mr. M.A. Aher Advocate for assist to P.P. : Mr. Sachin Panale

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND

VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

DATED : 20^th APRIL, 2026.

ORDER :

The applicant is convicted in Sessions Case No.58/2010 under Section 307 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. By this application, the applicant seeks bail.

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned Advocate representing the victim. Perused the papers.

In short, the prosecution case is that the injured (PW-1) had given hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the applicant for purchasing Jeep. PW-1 demanded the money back. On 28.09.2009, in the afternoon, the applicant called him to take the money. At around 6 p.m., the applicant came to Shivaji Chowk, Udgir and asked PW-1 to accompany him to go to his village, promising to pay the amount.

2

4784.2025APPLN.odt

Accordingly, they proceeded towards the village. At Shelhal Pati, the applicant stopped his vehicle and got out. He suggested that since it was Dussehra, they should go to the field and bring Apatyachi Pane. Accordingly, PW-1, applicant and accused no.2 Laxman went to Maruti Bhinge's field on PW-1’s motorcycle. At that time, the applicant took PW-1’s mobile phone under the pretext of calling. When they had gone some distance, applicant pulled out a country-made pistol from his shirt and shot at PW-1's chest. He fell down, but managed to stand and started throwing stones towards the applicant. Accused no.2 approached PW-1 with an iron Tommy. PW-1 continued to throw stones to defend himself when both the accused ran away from the spot. Injury caused to PW-1 was bleeding, he left his motorcycle there and hid in the crops to reach the road. He tried to stop several vehicles, but none stopped. Lastly, a State Transport Bus arrived and stopped. He boarded the Bus, he was taken to the Government Hospital in Udgir and was admitted there. Then the Police were informed about the incident. PW-1 disclosed that the applicant fired a bullet at him with an intent to kill him. Accordingly, P.I. R.M. Jadhav, who was posted at Udgir Rural Police Station went to Government Hospital, Udgir at about 8.40 p.m. and met PW-1, who informed him the incident but he was unable to speak further, therefore, P.I. Jadhav filed report under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, vide Crime No.152/2009.

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction cannot be sustained as the prosecution has failed to prove that the applicant is author of the crime. Except injured, there is no other eye witness. The panchanama of recovery of alleged weapon used in the crime is not proved by the

3

4784.2025APPLN.odt

prosecution as both panchas turned hostile and the Investigating Officer has also expired. Accused no.2 whose weapon i.e. country made pistol (Exhibit-1), which is allegedly used in the crime, is acquitted from the offence punishable under the Arms Act. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of weapon of the crime. F.I.R. is lodged after two days of incident that too by P.S.I. and not by the injured. He submits that trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and has erroneously convicted the applicant. During the trial, the applicant has undergone six months imprisonment and after his conviction, the applicant is behind bars since 29.11.2025. The applicant has good case on merits and applicant hopes to succeed, hence he may be released on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.

Learned A.P.P. and learned Advocate for the victim strenuously opposed the application. With their assistance, we have perused the evidence brought on record by the prosecution during trial.

The prosecution in support of its case examined 16 witnesses. PW-1 injured has deposed in terms of F.I.R. His evidence is corroborated by the injury certificate (Exhibit - 125). Injuries are caused on the vital part i.e. neck and upper part of chest. The evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the evidence of Medical witnesses PW-12 and PW-14. PW-9 driver and PW-11 conductor of the Bus have admitted PW-1 in hospital and their evidence has corroborated the version of PW-1. The weapon i.e. country made pistol (Exhibit-1) is recovered from the applicant. Ballistic report confirms that the country made pistol (Exhibit-1) was fired just prior to its receipt for ballistic examination. Thus, it corroborates the prosecution case that it was used

4

4784.2025APPLN.odt

in the crime. F.I.R. is lodged on the date of incident.

On perusal of the impugned judgment and prosecution evidence, we are of the prima facie view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and conviction of the applicant is sustainable in the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant to release him on bail during the pendency of appeal. We find no merit in the application and the same is rejected.

(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI,J.)

sga