Dismissed¶17

Pruthviraj Bhagwansingh Walmiki @ Ballu v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2026BA/3757/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application dismissed; long incarceration plea (custody approx. four years five months) not pressed on merits; offences under Ss. 376 and 506(2) IPC; CR No. 967 of 2021, MIDC Police Station; FIR alleging rape at knife point; charge-sheet filed; earlier order dated 01.10.2025 for victim's examination within four months; trial directed to conclude within six months with liberty to revive bail application; State cited six antecedents of bodily offences and one conviction.

What did the court decide?

No release on bail; the trial is directed to be concluded within six months, failing which the Applicant may revive his bail application. ¶17

Pruthviraj Bhagwansingh Walmiki @ Ballu vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No release on bail; the trial is directed to be concluded within six months, failing which the Applicant may revive his bail application.

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, in custody for approximately four years and five months with only the victim's evidence recorded since the Court's order dated 1st October, 2025, is entitled to release on bail on the ground of long incarceration. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

The bail application stands dismissed, the Applicant having not pressed the prayer for bail on merits at this stage and having sought only expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Considering the number of witnesses to be examined, the trial is directed to be concluded within a period of six months from the date of the order.

¶16

Key takeaways

In case the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, it is open to the Applicant to revive his application for bail.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (R. M. Joshi, J.), by order dated 8th May, 2026, dismissed Criminal Bail Application No. 3757 of 2025 filed by Pruthviraj Bhagwansingh Walmiki @ Ballu seeking release on bail in CR No. 967 of 2021 (MIDC Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Applicant, arrested on 24th December, 2021, had been in custody for about four years and five months, and since the Court's order dated 1st October, 2025 directing the victim's examination within four months, only her evidence stood recorded. Learned counsel did not press the bail plea on merits and instead sought expeditious trial disposal; the learned APP, opposing bail on account of the manner of the crime, six antecedents of bodily offences and one conviction, undertook on instructions that the trial would conclude within six months. The Court directed conclusion of the trial within six months, reserved liberty to the Applicant to revive his bail application if the trial was not so concluded, and dismissed the bail application.

¶1

5_BA_3757_2025.DOC

¶2

Prasad

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

5 CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3757 OF 2025

¶5

Pruthviraj Bhagwansingh Walmiki @ Ballu ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. B.J. Shaikh , for the Applicant. Mr. A.S. Gawai , APP for the Respondent-State. WPSI – Prerna Bankar, MIDC Police Station, present.

¶7

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 08^th MAY, 2026.

¶8

PC:-

¶9

The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with CR No.967 of 2021 dated 19^th December, 2021 registered with MIDC Police Station, for offence punishable Sections 376 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶10

The FIR lodged by the victim indicates that on knife point she was forced to submit herself to sexual intercourse. On the basis of said information, the offence came to be registered. The Applicant came to be arrested on 24^th December, 2021. On conclusion of investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that this Court passed an order dated 1^st October, 2025 indicating that the victim would be examined within a period of four months. It is his

¶12

Page 1 of 2 08^th May, 2026.

¶13

5_BA_3757_2025.DOC

¶14

submission that since then only victim’s evidence is recorded till date. According to him, the Applicant is in custody since four years and five months and as such, he is entitled for bail on the ground of long incarceration.

¶15

Learned APP opposes the application by submitting that apart from the manner in which the crime in question has been committed, there are six antecedents against the Applicant which are all of bodily offences and one conviction against him. It is not in the fitness of the trial to enlarge him on bail. On instructions, he makes a statement that the trial would be concluded within a period of six months from today. At this stage, learned counsel for the Applicant does not seek order on merits. Instead he seeks expeditious disposal of the trial within a period of six months.

¶16

Considering the number of witnesses to be examined the trial is directed to be concluded within a period of six months from today. In case the trial is not concluded within a period of six months, it is open for the Applicant to revive his application for bail.

¶17

6. Bail Application stands dismissed.

¶18

Page 2 of 2 08^th May, 2026.

Pruthviraj Bhagwansingh Walmiki @ Ballu v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pruthviraj Bhagwansingh Walmiki @ Ballu v. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dontus Chidokwe and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Rajnarayan Devkaran Gupta vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Babu @ Kamlesh Gautam Gupta vs State of Maharashtra

Satish Kumar Pondiyappan vs State of Maharashtra

Heron Ashok Ray vs the State of Maharashtra

Arjun Fojaram Kadvasara vs the State of Maharashtra