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, in custody since his arrest on 26 August 2024 in Crime No. 473 of 2024 with investigation complete, charge-sheet filed and the trial unlikely to conclude soon, should be enlarged on bail notwithstanding prima facie material said to support an intention to kill the deceased.

Court's answer

On prima facie perusal of the record, evidence and statements of witnesses gathered during investigation, the appellant came to the spot of the incident carrying a knife, caused one blow on the deceased, ran away from the spot, and thereafter followed the deceased and inflicted further blows.

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the post-mortem notes indicates 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.

Key takeaways

This evidence prima facie clearly supports the case of the prosecution that the appellant had intended to kill the deceased.ratio¶17
Having regard to the seriousness of the crime, the Trial Court was justified in rejecting bail.ratio¶18
The observations in the judgment rest on a prima facie consideration of the material record and shall not bind the Trial Court during the final hearing of the Appeal.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail-rejection appeal dismissed (R. M. Joshi, J., Bombay High Court, 18-02-2026, Crl. Appeal No. 166 of 2026 with IA No. 3710 of 2025). Appellant Suresh Parmeshwar Bhilare, arrested 26-08-2024 in Crime No. 473 of 2024 (Sinhagad Road Police Station, Pune) with investigation over and charge-sheet filed, argued the trial would not conclude soon and that prior quarrels with the deceased showed no motive to kill; the State (Respondent No. 1) and Respondent No. 2 relied on witness statements and post-mortem notes indicating intention to kill. On prima facie consideration the Court found the appellant came armed with a knife, inflicted one blow, fled and then followed the deceased inflicting further blows; the PM notes recorded 18 injuries including three stab injuries and one puncture injury, prima facie supporting intent to kill. Holding the Trial Court justified in rejecting bail given the seriousness of the crime, the Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the pending Interim Application, clarifying that its observations were prima facie only and would 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