Bombay High Court
GOVIND SHANKAR GHORPADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail cannot be granted; the interim application is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, convicted of murder and attempt to murder under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, applied for suspension of his sentence and bail pending appeal. He contended that key eyewitnesses were interested parties and that the evidence contained contradictions, also urging release after six years of incarceration. The State argued that three eye‑witnesses, including an injured victim, gave consistent, corroborated testimony, supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the knife under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court examined the credibility of the witnesses and the admissibility of the knife, finding no material inconsistencies and concluding that the evidence firmly established the applicant’s participation. Owing to the heinous nature of the offences and the strength of the prosecution’s case, the Court rejected the bail application and disposed of the interim application pending the appeal.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting bail to a convicted murderer and attempted murderer pending appeal
- The credibility and admissibility of testimony from alleged interested witnesses
- The admissibility of the knife recovered from the accused’s premises under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 307
Subjects
- murder
- attempt to murder
- bail
- interim application
- life imprisonment
- eye‑witness testimony
- knife recovery
- evidence admissibility
Judgment
SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA
JOHNSON GONSALVES
JOHNSON Date: 2026.08.25
GONSALVES 18:49:33 +0530
sg 1/5 34.ia.597-26.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 597 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 276 OF 2026
Govind Shankar Ghorpade .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
…
Mr. Datta Solankar, for the Applicant.
Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for the Respondent-State.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATED: 24th AUGUST, 2026
P.C:-
1. This is an Application seeking suspension of the sentence
imposed by the learned Special Judge, Thane, vide Judgment and
Order dated 30.04.2019 along with a prayer for grant of bail.
2. The Applicant is the solitary accused who was arraigned
for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC.
The present Applicant was convicted for the aforesaid offences
and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default of which he was sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence
sg 2/5 34.ia.597-26.docx
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and seven years
rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 of IPC and fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer RI for one month. Both sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction, the Applicant has
separately preferred Criminal Appeal No.276 of 2026, which
was admitted by this Court vide its order dated 26.02.2026.
4. Heard Mr. Datta Solankar, learned counsel for the
Applicant and Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for the
Respondent-State. Perused the Interim Application and the
Record.
5. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that, the first
informant lodged a report against the Applicant, alleging that, on
30.11.2016, her daughter-in-law one Sujata was fetching water
from the tap at about 7.00 p.m. while the son of the Applicant
pelted stone on her. Sujata went to the house of the Applicant to
admonish him about this act of his son. However, the Applicant
abused her in filthy words. Thereafter, Sujata’s mother Malati
(deceased) and her son Vicky Waghe went to the house of the
sg 3/5 34.ia.597-26.docx
Applicant. The Applicant abused him, brought a knife from the
house and inflicted a blow of the knife on the chest of Malati
Waghe (the deceased). Vicky tried to intervene but the Applicant
stabbed him also with the knife. People gathered there on the
spot. Both injured were taken to hospital. Malati died in the
hospital on the same day. Vicky was admitted for three weeks.
The police registered the offence punishable under Sections 302,
307 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, panchnamas
were drawn up. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On
culmination of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. During
trial, the Applicant pleaded not guilty and took up a defence of
total denial.
6. On behalf of the Applicant it was contended that PW Nos.
1, 2, 3 and 6 were interested witnesses since they were related in
some manner to the deceased. Hence, their evidence ought to be
discarded. It was also urged that there were several
contradictions and omissions which go to the root of the matter
which was not appreciated by the trial Court. The recovery
against the accused was from an open and accessible place, and
hence, ought not to have been relied upon. Lastly, it was
sg 4/5 34.ia.597-26.docx
submitted that the Applicant has spent more than six years in jail
and he may be released on bail on such terms and conditions as
deemed fit and proper by this Court.
7. Learned APP Mr. Khan opposed the grant of bail by
submitting that the evidence of PW No.2 Vicky is clear and
cogent. He has witnessed the assault and was also injured by the
accused. The testimony of the injured witness stands on a higher
footing. The evidence of PW No.2 is corroborated by evidence
of PW No.3 – Sujata, who also narrates the incident as witnessed
by her. PW No.6 is a relative of Malati and Vicky. He is also an
eye witness to the incident. Thus, the incident of assault on
Vicky and Malati was witnessed by three eye-witnesses, whose
evidence has remained unshaken in cross-examination. In
addition to the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the incriminating
circumstance of recovery of the knife at the instance of the
accused, coupled with the medical evidence corroborating the
injuries sustained by the deceased, clearly establishes the
complicity of the Applicant in the commission of the offence.
The offence is heinous and serious in nature. Hence, he prayed
that the bail may not be granted.
sg 5/5 34.ia.597-26.docx
8. Perusal of the evidence reveals that the testimony of
multiple eye-witnesses establish not only the presence of the
Applicant on the spot but the manner in which he has inflicted
injuries with the knife on the deceased. Medical evidence
corroborates these injuries. The evidence of the eye-witnesses
does not suffer from any significant contradiction either between
themselves or with their previous statements. PW No.5 has
proved the panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
where knife was recovered at the instance of the accused. The
knife was recovered from basement of the house of the
Applicant. Apart from false implication, the Applicant has not
come out with any other defence. In the wake of the aforesaid
circumstances and in light of the brutality with which the offence
has been committed, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit
case to grant bail.
9. In view thereof, bail application stands rejected. Interim
Application No.597 of 2026 is disposed of, pending the appeal.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Checking your session…