Bombay High Court

MAHESH YADIGIRI MIRIYALAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: Rejected
Bench: SACHIN SHIVAJIRAO DESHMUKH

Holding

The Court denied bail, finding a prima facie case of the applicant's complicity and concluding that bail could not be granted.

Summary

The applicant, Mahesh Yadigiri Miriyala, sought regular bail in a case involving murder, attempt to murder and abetment (IPC §§302, 201, 109 r.w. 34) after the death of Bharat, a truck garage owner. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including call records linking the applicant to co‑accused, indicating his participation in the assault that caused the victim's death. The applicant argued for bail on the ground of parity, citing that a co‑accused (the victim's wife) had already been released on bail. The Court held that the material established a prima facie case of complicity, that parity did not apply because the co‑accused was a woman protected under Section 480 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, and that the seriousness of the offence outweighed any delay in trial. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution's circumstantial evidence establishes a prima facie case of the applicant's involvement warranting denial of bail.
Whether the parity principle applies when another co‑accused (the victim's wife) is already on bail.
Whether delay in trial can be a ground for granting bail in a serious offence.
Whether the nature of the offences (murder, attempt to murder, abetment) precludes the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 480
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 109, 201, 302, 34

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC
circumstantial evidence
prima facie
parity
serious offence
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

1
50-BA-56-2026 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 56 OF 2026

Mahesh Yadigiri Miriyala ....Applicant
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra ....Respondent

Mr. D. M. Latake a/w Mr. Nikhil D. Gore, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. S. Chaudhari APP for the State
Ms. Pallavi Yadav, API, Hatkanangale Police Station

CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH 2026.
P.C.

1. The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with C.R. No.

25 of 2024 dated 01/01/2024 registered with Hatkanangale Police

Station, District Kolhapur for offences punishable under Sections 302,

201, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Complainant Pandurang Yeshal lodged a complaint stating

that he resides with his wife, Sau. Rukmini at Renuka Zopadpatti,

Ichalkaranji. His elder son Shrikant lives separately at the same

location with his wife and children. His younger son, Bharat (Age:

38), his wife Sau. Varalakshmi, and their children Usha, Amol, and

Harish also live separately. For the last 10 years, Bharat has been

operating a truck garage near Bhagat Singh Bage in Ichalkaranji. For

his daily commute, Bharat used a Hero Company motorcycle, bearing

registration number MH-09-ES-1727. Bharat was an occasional

Iresh
2
50-BA-56-2026 (CR).DOC

consumer of alcohol. He used to travel to Ichalkaranji and

surrounding villages at various hours of the night for truck repair

work.

3. On 07/01/2024, at approximately 03:30 a.m., police

personnel from the Hatkanangale Police Station arrived at

complainant’s house and began inquiring about Bharat. Consequently,

complainant went to Bharat’s house and woke up his wife, Sau.

Varalakshmi. Upon inquiry, Varalakshmi informed him that at around

12:30 a.m., an unknown person called Bharat on his mobile phone

for truck repair work, following which he left on his bike. When

complainant asked the police about Bharat, he was informed that on

the Korochi-Hatkanangale road, at a place called Chavan Tek, some

unknown persons had assaulted Bharat with a sharp weapon, causing

grievous multiple injuries. Complainant alongwith his son Shrikant,

Bhausaheb Kasbe, and other neighbors, accompanied with the police

to Chavan Tek, Korochi, at approximately 04:00 AM. There,

complainant saw his son Bharat lying in a pool of blood by the

roadside. Doctors from the 108 Ambulance examined Bharat and

after the examination, declared him dead. Bharat’s motorcycle was

also lying on the road near the body. After the police conducted a spot

panchnama, the body was shifted to the Rural Hospital,

Hatkanangale, for post-mortem.

Iresh
3
50-BA-56-2026 (CR).DOC

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that case is

premised on circumstantial evidence. There is no material indicating

complicity of the applicant in the alleged incident. The applicant is

entitled to be admitted to the bail on the ground parity since the co-

accused no. 4-wife of deceased already enlarged on bail. In view of

the fact that investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed,

application deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra learned APP vehemently opposed the application

submitting that the complicity of the applicant is evidence from the

material collected during the course of investigation and the applicant

is not entitled for the parity, in view of the role assigned to the

present applicant. As such, prayed for rejection of the application.

6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and

learned APP, it is a case premised on circumstantial evidence,

however, the material collected during the course of investigation

prima facie establishes the complicity of the applicant in the alleged

offence. The call details at the relevant point of time of the

commission of offence between the present applicant and other co-

accused sufficiently prima facie indicates the involvement of the

present applicant. Apart from same, the attempt to screening of the

offence is prima facie apparent. Multiple injuries i.e. inasmuch as 25

grievous injuries were inflicted on the person of the deceased

Iresh
4
50-BA-56-2026 (CR).DOC

indicates the severity of the offence.

7. So far as the ground of parity is concerned, the same would

not be available to the applicant in the wake of the fact that accused

no. 4 is enlarged on bail, in the wake of protection available, being a

lady under Section 480 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

8. The Hon’ble 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.

9. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in 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.

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

through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005)8 SCC 21] , has 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. As stated earlier, the prosecution

has collected overwhelming evidence against the present applicant.

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 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

Iresh
5
50-BA-56-2026 (CR).DOC

outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including reasonable

ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and possibility of justice

being thwarted.

12. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP [(2016)15 SCC 422] , the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Courts must not casually ignore

the criminal antecedents of the accused and must remain vigilant in

heinous offences. The same principles were again re-affirmed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi) [(2018)12 SCC 129].

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh

Kumar and Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 670) has laid down the principle that

bail can be refused when the material produced by prosecution

establishes a clear prima facie face. The Court should not conduct a

mini-trial; it should only examine whether the available evidence

links the accused to the alleged offense.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Satpal Singh Vs. State of

Haryana [(2020)2 SCC 118] that bail ought to to be withheld, if

prosecution has established the ‘last seen together’ circumstance

alongwith corroborative material.

15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Amit

Kumar [(2017)13 SCC 751], has held that delay especially in cases

involving serious offences, cannot by itself be a ground for bail. In the

Iresh
6
50-BA-56-2026 (CR).DOC

present case, the trial is progressing and further the prosecution has

demonstrated the efforts to conclude the trial. Considering the

seriousness of the offences involved, the overwhelming material

weighs against the applicant.

16. Considering the material currently available, a clear prima

facie case is made out indicating the involvement of the accused.

Equally, the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently reiterated that while

considering bail application/s in serious offenses—such as pre-

meditated murder—the Court must treat vital considerations like the

nature of the charge and the nature of the evidence as paramount.

17. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for applicant

in relation to delay in trial, the same cannot be considered in

isolation. As has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Amit

Kumar (supra), the delay especially in cases involving serious

offences, cannot by itself be a ground for bail.

18. The Honourable Apex Court in 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 has observed as under :

"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

Iresh
7
50-BA-56-2026 (CR).DOC

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.)”
12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have
been rejected there is a further onus on the court to
consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by
noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications
have been rejected and after such consideration if the
court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then
said court will have to given specific reasons why in spite
of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for
bail should be granted."

Iresh
8
50-BA-56-2026 (CR).DOC

19. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has underscored the

obligation of the Court when an earlier bail application has been

rejected. A significant onus is placed on the Court while deciding a

successive bail application/s to justify the grant of bail. The Court

must specifically consider the grounds on which the previous

application was rejected. If, after this consideration, the Court forms

an opinion that bail should be granted, it must record explicit, specific

reasons for doing so.

20. Thus, a clear prima facie case is established by the

prosecution indicating the involvement and same being credible and

supporting the accusation against the applicant, I am of the

considered view that the discretion cannot be exercised in favour of

the present applicant. In view of the aforesaid observations and

having regard to the gravity of the offence, the applicant does not

deserve to be admitted to the bail. Resultantly, the application does

not warrant consideration and same stands rejected.

21. Needless to state that, nothing stated hereinabove shall be
IRESH
MASHAL

Digitally
construed as an expression on merits of the case. Learned Trial Court
signed by
IRESH
MASHAL
Date:
2026.03.06
20:20:21
+0530 shall proceed independently and uninfluenced by the observations

made hereinabove.

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

Iresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…