[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Laxman Piraji Surne vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 23 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:8267
46 BA No.125.2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2026
LAXMAN PIRAJI SURANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Santosh C. Bhosle
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Aakash Madne (Appointed)
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 23rd February, 2026
ORDER :
-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 26.08.2025 bearing Crime
No. 280 of 2025 registered with Umari Police Station, Dist. Nanded
for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 64(f)(m), 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 alongwith Section 3(2)(v-a)
of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of
Women from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 9 of the Child
Marriage Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Between 01.01.2023
and 31.12.2024, the deceased, Lakhan Bhandare, and Sanjeevani
Maroti Surane were involved in a love affair. On noting this affair
by the villagers, a prominent local figure mediated a settlement
between the two families and the couple, after which it was
believed the matter was resolved. From 01.01.2025 to 24.08.2025,
Maroti Laxman Surane arranged his daughter Sanjeevani's
marriage to Sudesh Kamale in Golegaon. Although the families
noticed no further contact, the secret relationship between Lakhan
and Sanjeevani continued during this period.
3. It is further alleged that on 25.08.2025 approximately
at 01.15 pm, while the informant was attending the funeral of
Rajendra Bhandare, received a phone call from Mahend Bhujang
Tarode informing that Lakhan had gone to Golegaon to meet
Sanjeevani and that both had been detained by Sanjeevani's
family. Lakhan briefly contacted the informant requesting help
before his phone went unanswered. Later on 25.08.2025,
Chandrakant Bhandare informed the family that the accused Maroti
Laxman Surane, Madhav Laxman Surane, and Laxman Piraji
Surane, had taken Lakhan and Sanjeevani toward Borjuni. While
searching for them, the informant and his relatives reached the
farm of Bapurao Kadam in the area of Karkala village, where a
crowd had gathered near a well.
4. It is further alleged that between 02.00 pm and 03.30
pm on 25.08.2025, the accused trio allegedly murdered Lakhan
Bhandare, Sanjeevani and Sudesh Kamale on the footpath between
Golegaon and Borjuni. They then disposed of the bodies in the well
at Karkala Shivara. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence. The entire
prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no
"eye-witness" to the actual commission of the alleged triple
murder. The informant's statement regarding the accused taking
the deceased toward Borjuni is based on hearsay (information
provided by Chandrakant Bhandare).
6. The learned counsel for applicant further submits that
the FIR mentions the "accused trio" collectively. There is a lack of
specific allegations or a defined role attributed to Laxman Piraji
Surane regarding the actual act of killing or the disposal of the
bodies. Moreover, the investigation is complete and the charge-
sheet is also filed. Nothing remains to be recovered at the instance
of applicant. Hence, it is prayed that the application be allowed.
7. The learned APP and the learned counsel appointed on
behalf of respondent No. 2 have opposed the application,
submitting that the offence is serious in nature and that there is
sufficient material on record to establish the applicant's complicity.
The gravity of the offence is extreme, as the accused targeted and
brutally murdered Lakhan Bhandare and Sanjeevani due to their
love affair, as well as Sudesh Kamale, deploying a total disregard
for the law. There is seamless chain of circumstantial and direct
evidence against the applicants. Furthermore, the APP argued that
if the applicant is released on bail, there is every possibility of the
prosecution evidence being tampered with or the offence being
repeated. Accordingly, it was prayed that the application be
rejected.
8. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet, the
applicant / accused is implicated in a double homicide, involving
the pre-meditated murder of Lakhan Bhandare and Sanjeevani
Surane. The nature of the crime a suspected "honor killing", is
particularly heinous and strikes at the fabric of public order. The
brutality involved in the alleged killing and subsequent disposal of
two bodies in a well indicates a high degree of depravity and
criminal intent.
9. While the the learned counsel for applicant argues that
the evidence in the crime is of circumstantial in nature, the
prosecution has prima facie established a strong chain of events.
The statement of witness Chandrakant Bhandare specifically names
Laxman Piraji Surane as one of the trio who forcibly took the
deceased toward the location of the crime (Borjuni) shortly before
the murders occurred. This "Last Seen" evidence, coupled with the
immediate discovery of the bodies, creates a strong prima facie
presumption of guilt.
10. In my considered view, the prosecution has sufficiently
established the 'last seen together' theory alongwith other
corroborative material. As such, as has been held by 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.
11. The contention that no specific overt act is attributed to
this particular accused does not warrant consideration at this
stage. The facts suggest a concerted action by the family
members. The presence of Laxman Surane at the scene of the
detention and during the transport of the victims prima facie
indicates common intention. In cases of group-perpetrated
custodial violence / honor killings, the individual "blow" is less
relevant than the collective participation in the criminal enterprise.
12. The Hon'ble 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 like murder, 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 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.)
13. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of RamGovind
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.
15. 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 case. The Court should
not conduct a mini-trial; it should only examine whether the
available evidence links the accused to the alleged offence.
16. 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, prima facie, collected overwhelming evidence
against the present applicant.
17. 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 outlined eight crucial factors to be considered, including
reasonable ground for belief in guilt, nature of evidence and
possibility of justice being thwarted.
18. 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 present case, the trial is actively progressing, and the
prosecution has demonstrated its commitment to concluding
proceedings expeditiously. Considering the seriousness of the
offences charged, the extensive material evidence presented
weighs overwhelmingly against the applicant.
19. In view of the aforesaid observations and having regard
to the gravity of the offence, I do not find merit in the present
application. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
20. The High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Aurangabad, to pay the fees to the learned counsel appointed on
behalf of respondent No. 2, as per rules.
21. Needless to states 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, J.)
Omkar Joshi
