Umesh Gopinath Bhavar vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Umesh Gopinath Bhavar vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail in Crime No.297 of 2025 on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: not to tamper with evidence or influence prosecution witnesses; to attend the concerned police station as and when required; Trial Court to decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations in this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, detained for over seven months in Crime No.297 of 2025 (Sections 108 and 351(2), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), should be released on regular bail, weighing the completed investigation, filed charge-sheet and lack of trial progress against the alleged risks of absconding and tampering with/threatening prosecution witnesses.

Court's answer

Bail was considered favourably because the Applicant had been behind bars for more than seven months, there was no progress in the trial, the investigation stood completed, the charge-sheet had been filed, and it would take time to conclude the trial.

Ratio / Principle

The Applicant was directed to be released on bail in Crime No.297 of 2025 registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik, on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

Key takeaways

Release was made subject to conditions that the Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the prosecution witnesses, and shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.ratio¶¶33
The Trial Court was directed to decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.ratio¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Shivkumar Dige, J., 9 April 2026) allowed regular bail to Umesh Gopinath Bhavar, in custody for over seven months in Crime No.297 of 2025 (Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik) under Sections 108 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in a case where the prosecution alleged that his continuous mental and physical harassment drove the first informant's wife to suicide. With the investigation completed, charge-sheet filed and no progress in the trial, the Court released him on a PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence and influencing prosecution witnesses, requiring attendance at the concerned police station as and when required, and directing the Trial Court to decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations in the order.

9 BA 376.26.doc

Dusane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 376 OF 2026

Umesh Gopinath Bhavar

..Applicant

Vs.

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2026.04.10 19:32:04 +0530

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

..Respondents

Mr. Shailesh Kharat a/w Onkar Chaudhari, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. Kranti Hiwrale, APP for Respondent-State.

Mr. Mahesh Pawar a/w Mr. Mihir Kasliwal i/by Mr. Rahul Kasliwal for Intervenor.

PSI, N.N. Shaikh, Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik present.

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 9^th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for

the State.

By this Application, the Applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No.297 of 2025 registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under Sections 108 and 351(2) of Bharrtriya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

It is prosecution’s case that the Applicant used to mentally and physically harass the wife of the first informant and due to his continuous harassment, she committed suicide.

Page 1 of 3

9 BA 376.26.doc

Dusane

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant is behind bar for more than 7 months. He has no antecedents. Investigation is completed and requested to allow the application.

It is contention of learned APP for the State and learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 that on the mobile, the Applicant had sent various threatening messages to the deceased. Due to continuous threatening and mental harassment, she has committed suicide. If Applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten the prosecution witnesses and requested to reject the application.

I have heard all learned counsel. Perused charge-sheet and documents produced on record.

The Applicant is behind bar for more than 7 months. There is no progress in the trial. Investigation is completed. Charge-sheet filed. It may take time to conclude the trial.

Considering this fact, I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The Applicant- Umesh Gopinath Bhavar be released on bail in Crime No.297 of 2025 registered with Mumbai Naka Police Station, Nashik, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

Page 2 of 3

9 BA 376.26.doc

Dusane

(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.

(iv) The Applicant shall attend the concerned police station, as and when required.

(v) Bail Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 3 of 3