Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Ramesh Phoolchand Prajapati vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Bombay HC
2026
Ramesh Phoolchand Prajapati vs State of MaharashtraRamesh Phoolchand Prajapati v. State of Maharashtra

Disposed¶¶21

Ramesh Phoolchand Prajapati v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Mar 2026BA/2392/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court bail application (BA No. 2392 of 2025, R. M. Joshi, J., 23-04-2026) disposed of without immediate release; Trial Court directed to finish trial within six months; liberty to revive bail prayer thereafter. Facts: knife assault on the Applicant's alleged lover at her residence after refused marriage proposal; Applicant found injured with slit wrist; FIR C.R. No. 74 of 2022 dated 25.02.2022, Ghatkopar P.S.; charges under Sections 307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2) and Maharashtra Police Act Sections 37(1)(a), 135; charge-sheet filed; Victim examined; twelve witnesses pending; defence cited spot panchanama discrepancies (room allegedly bolted from outside) and unexplained injuries to the accused. No precedents cited; no amounts involved.

What did the court decide?

Bail not granted at this stage; the Trial Court was directed to complete the trial within six months, and the Applicant was left free to revive his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within six months.

Why is it important?

Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the Applicant and the fact that the trial would get over within six months, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months. ¶¶18

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail not granted at this stage; the Trial Court was directed to complete the trial within six months, and the Applicant was left free to revive his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within six months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, alleged to have assaulted the Victim with a knife in her own house in connection with C.R. No. 74 of 2022 (Ghatkopar Police Station), should be released on bail.

Court's answer

Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the Applicant and the fact that the trial would get over within six months, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months.

Ratio / Principle

In case the trial is not concluded within six months, it is open for the Applicant to revive his prayer for bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Application No. 2392 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), R. M. Joshi, J., decided 23 April 2026. The Applicant, claiming a love relationship with the Victim, is alleged by the prosecution to have assaulted her with a knife in her own house after the Victim's mother refused a marriage proposal; the Applicant was found in the house in an injured condition, said to have slit his wrist. Offence registered vide C.R. No. 74 of 2022 dated 25th February 2022 with Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai, punishable under Sections 307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2) and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act; charge-sheet filed; the Victim already examined with twelve more witnesses to follow. The Court did not release the Applicant on bail forthwith; it directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months and disposed of the Bail Application, leaving the Applicant free to revive his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within six months.

A

22-BA-2392-2025.DOC

Shivgan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2392 OF 2025

Ramesh Phoolchand Prajapati …Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondents

Mr. Atul Prakash Kakade , with Deepali R. Saudagar, for the Applicant.

Ms. Veera Shinde , APP for the Respondent-State.

Mr. Kshirsagar, PSI attached to Ghatkopar Police Station, present .

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 23^rd APRIL, 2026.

PC:-

The Applicant claims himself to be in love relationship with the Victim. However, the allegation against him is that, he assaulted her with a knife in her own house. The offence came to be registered vide C. R. No. 74 of 2022, dated 25^th February 2022 registered with Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2) and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Applicant seeks bail in connection with the same.

In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the Applicant and the Victim were said to have an affair. The parents of the Victim refused to marry her to the Applicant. On the fateful day, the Applicant came to the house of the Victim. He disclosed his intention to marry the Victim to her mother. When she refused the

Page 1 of 3 23^rd April, 2026.

22-BA-2392-2025.DOC

said proposal, he took out a knife, which was brought by him with him and caused assault on the Victim. The record further indicates that the Applicant was found in the house in an injured condition. He is said to have slit his wrist. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that this is a case of love affair between the Applicant and the Victim. He attempted to draw attention of the Court to the discrepancies, which according to him, have found in the investigation. In this regard, reference is made to the spot panchanama, which according to him, shows that the room in which the incident has occurred, was bolted from outside whereas, there is a statement of eye witness indicating that the said room was bolted from inside. He claims that there is no explanation with regard to the injuries caused to the accused. It is his further submission that the Victim has already been examined and as such, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution, if the Applicant is released on bail.

The learned APP opposes the Bail Application by submitting that evidence in this case, has already commenced. It is pointed out that the Victim is examined before the Trial Court. According to her, twelve more witnesses are to be examined and as such, the trial would get over within six months.

Having regard to the nature of allegations against the present Applicant and particularly, in view of the fact that the trial would get over within six months from today, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months from today.

Page 2 of 3 23^rd April, 2026.

22-BA-2392-2025.DOC

The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.

In case, the trial is not concluded within six months from today, it is open for the Applicant to revive his prayer for bail.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2026.04.23 18:50:19 +0530

Page 3 of 3 23^rd April, 2026.

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Applicant, alleged to have assaulted the Victim with a knife in her own house in connection with C.R. No. 74 of 2022 (Ghatkopar Police Station), should be released on bail.¶¶11
The court held
Having regard to the nature of the allegations against the Applicant and the fact that the trial would get over within six months, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months.ratio¶¶18

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Sections 307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2)307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2)¶¶11
Maharashtra Police Act37(1)(a), 135¶¶11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Offence registered vide C.R. No. 74 of 2022, dated 25th February 2022, with Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2) and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.¶¶11
Prior proceeding
Per the record, the Applicant was found in the house in an injured condition, having slit his wrist.¶¶15
Prior proceeding
Charge-sheet filed on conclusion of investigation.¶¶15
Prior proceeding
Trial commenced; the Victim has been examined before the Trial Court; twelve more witnesses remain and the trial is expected to conclude within six months.¶¶17

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Ramesh Phoolchand Prajapati¶¶5
Atul Prakash Kakade, Deepali R. Saudagar
respondent
State of Maharashtra¶¶5
Veera Shinde

Coram

AI extract

R. M. JOSHIauthor¶¶9

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Bombay HC
Decided on: 23 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 13 Jun 2025
Case no.: BA/2392/2025
CNR: HCBM010312912025
Bench: R. M. Joshi
Disposal: Rejected
Case type: Bail Application

All orders in this case

9 orders share this CNR

20 Jun 2025Order 1 · R. M. Joshi
25 Jul 2025Order 2 · R. M. Joshi
12 Sept 2025Order 3 · R. M. Joshi
9 Oct 2025Order 4 · R. M. Joshi
18 Nov 2025Order 5 · R. M. Joshi
15 Dec 2025Order 6 · R. M. Joshi
23 Mar 2026Order 7 — this page · R. M. Joshi
1 Apr 2026Order 8 · R. M. Joshi
23 Apr 2026Order 9 · R. M. Joshi

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R. M. Joshi

Faizal Shehzad Khan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.
18 Mar 2026
Rohit Suresh Uttekar vs the State of Maharashtra
18 Mar 2026
Sherali Hafiz Khan vs State of Maharashtra
18 Mar 2026
Salim Urf S P Nizamuddin Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra
23 Mar 2026
Sunder Hanumanta Chetkandi vs the State of Maharashtra
23 Mar 2026
Mantasha Zehra Zia Alam Saayed and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra
23 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

Ramesh Phoolchand Prajapati v. State of Maharashtra, BA/2392/2025 (BOM), decided on 23 March 2026.

The Bombay High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Sections 307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2)307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2)
Maharashtra Police Act37(1)(a), 135

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Offence registered vide C.R. No. 74 of 2022, dated 25th February 2022, with Ghatkopar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 309, 342, 452, 506(2) and Sections 37(1)(a) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act.
Per the record, the Applicant was found in the house in an injured condition, having slit his wrist.

View full history

Bench / Coram

R. M. JOSHI

Parties & counsel