GOVIND SURESH DHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:6699
                                                       1                       931-BA-1612-25.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1612 OF 2025

                                     GOVIND SURESH DHAVAN
                                              VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                  ...
                         Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rakesh C. Bramhankar
                                                   (Appointed Through Legal Aid)
                              APP for Respondent : Mr. P. P. Dawalkar
                                                  ...

                                                CORAM :        SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                                DATE       :   06-02-2026
                PER COURT:-

                1.   The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime

                No.579 of 2019      dated 29.06.2019 registered with Parner Police

                Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of

                the Indian Penal Code. In the said crime, the applicant is arrested

                on 29.06.2019.


                2.   The prosecution case is that that the applicant frequently

                harassed the deceased and proposed marriage, which she

                consistently    refused.    On    28.06.2019,      the    complainant      was

                informed by the victim's maternal cousin that the applicant had

                assaulted the victim with a knife, inflicting wounds to her chest,

                right hand, and stomach before fleeing the scene. Although the

                victim    was   rushed     to   the    Government        Hospital,   she   was

                pronounced dead upon arrival. Driven by resentment over the

                rejected proposal, the applicant repeatedly harassed the victim
                                  2                      931-BA-1612-25.odt



and ultimately committed the fatal assault on 28.06.2019.

Consequently, the report is filed.


3.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

has been falsely implicated in the present case, noting the

conspicuous absence of any prior police complaints regarding the

alleged harassment and pointing out material inconsistencies in

the witnesses' accounts regarding the timing of the assault.


4.    It is further contended that the applicant’s arrest is based

merely on surmises and conjectures, and the role attributed to him

fails to attract the provisions of the alleged offense. The

investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed, the

applicant’s custodial interrogation is no longer required. The

applicant has been incarcerated for nearly six years since his

arrest; yet, despite the trial reaching the evidence stage, there has

been no significant progress. As the applicant is a permanent

resident and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, it is

prayed that the applicant may be released on bail subject to

reasonable conditions imposed by this Hon'ble Court.


5.    Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the application,

citing the gravity of the offense and the heinous nature of the

crime. It is submitted that the applicant assaulted the deceased

with a knife, inflicting multiple blows which resulted in her death.

The learned APP further highlights that there is sufficient
                                   3                          931-BA-1612-25.odt



incriminating material on record, including the recovery of the

murder weapon and the statements of multiple eyewitnesses, to

establish the applicant’s complicity. Given the seriousness of the

crime and the strength of the evidence, the prosecution prays for

the rejection of the bail application.


6.    Having heard the submissions from both the sides and upon

considering the material on record including chargesheet, it is

evident that a strong prima facie case exists against the applicant.

The   medical    evidence,    particularly     the    postmortem        report,

corroborates    the   prosecution's    narration      that    the     deceased

succumbed to grievous injuries inflicted by a sharp weapon.


7.    The direct testimony of eyewitnesses Rani Makar and Savita

Dalvi, recorded under Sections 162 and 164 of the Cr.P.C.,

specifically   implicates    the   applicant    in     the    fatal    assault.

Furthermore,    the   Chemical     Analyzer’s        report   establishes     a

formidable forensic link, confirming that the blood group found on

the applicant’s seized clothing vis-a-vis the recovered weapon

matches that of the deceased.


8.    The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Kalyan Chandra

Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan and Ors. [(2004)7 SCC

528], while laying down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail

in serious offences like murder, has observed as under :
                                4                     931-BA-1612-25.odt



        “11.     The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is
        very well settled. The court granting bail should
        exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as
        a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail
        a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate
        documentation of the merit of the case need not be
        undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders
        reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being
        granted particularly where the accused is charged of
        having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid
        of such reasons would suffer from non-application of
        mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to
        consider among other circumstances, the following
        factors also before granting bail; they are:

             (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
        punishment in case of conviction and the nature of
        supporting evidence.

            (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
        witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

            (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support
        of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
        Sudarshan Singh and Puran v. Rambilas.)


9.    Similarly, the Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Pralhad

Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi [(2001)4 SCC 280], held that on

satisfaction of prima facie evidence establishing the guilt of the

accused, the bail can be denied.


10.   The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Ram Govind

Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002)3 SCC 598], has held

that a judicial discretion in granting bail must not be exercised

whimsically, especially in heinous offences.


11.   Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of UP

through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005)8 SCC 21], has
                                 5                     931-BA-1612-25.odt



held that the Court must evaluate the prima facie evidence

showing the applicant's involvement. If such evidence is credible

and supports the accusations, bail may be refused.


12.   The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496], has held

that the mechanical grant of bail reflects non-application of mind,

and outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including

reasonable ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and

possibility of justice being thwarted.


13.   The offense is of an exceptionally grave and serious nature,

carrying a potential sentence of life imprisonment or death. Since

the applicant resides in the same vicinity as the witnesses, there is

a legitimate apprehension of witness tampering or interference

with the administration of justice if released at this stage. Although

the applicant has been in custody for a considerable period, the

compelling nature of the evidence and the severity of the

punishment outweigh the grounds for for bail. The mere filing of a

chargesheet does not entitle the applicant to bail when the

material on record points toward a prima facie high probability of

his involvement in a heinous crime.


14.   As the charges have already been framed and the trial is

poised to commence, this Court finds no merit in the present

application. Considering the gravity of the offense, the strength of
                                  6                   931-BA-1612-25.odt



the forensic and ocular evidence, and the potential risk to the

prosecution's case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its

discretion in favor of the applicant.


15.   Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected.


16.   The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,

Aurangabad to pay the fees of the appointed counsel for the

applicant, in accordance with the rules.


17.   Needless to state that the observations rendered herein are

to the extent of this application and the trial Court shall not be

influenced by the same.



                                  [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]
                                          JUDGE

rrd