Satish Bajirao Pekhale vs The State Of Maharashtra

2026:BHC-AS:6103 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.323 OF 2026 ARJUN VITTHAL Satish Bajirao Pekhale ...Applicant KUDHEKAR Versus Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.02.05 22:22:41 +0530

Ms. Sana Raees Khan (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Palak Kasliwal, for the Applicant. Ms. G. P. Mulekar, APP, for the Respondent-State. Head Constable, T. D. Lonare, Nashik Road Police Station, Nashik City, present.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 05 FEBRUARY 2026 PC:-

1. Heard Ms. Sana Raees Khan, learned Counsel appearing for

the Applicant and Ms. Mulekar, learned APP for the Respondent-

State of Maharashtra.

2. By the present Anticipatory Bail Application filed under

Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the

Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.239

of 2025 registered on 2nd May 2025 with the Nashik Road Police

Station, Nashik City, for the offences punishable under Sections

Page 1 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 ::: 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

103, 109, 3(5) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and

Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

3. As per the prosecution case, there are 3 Accused. Accused

No.1 is Nilesh Bajirao Pekhale, who is arrested and behind bars.

The present Applicant-Satish Bajirao Pekhale is Accused No.2 and

brother of Accused No.1. The Accused No.3-Bajirao Pekhale is the

father of the Accused Nos.1 and 2.

4. As per the prosecution case, Accused No.1 and the deceased

Hitesh Subhash Doiphode were close friends. One Pranali

Doiphode is wife of the deceased Hitesh Doiphode. On 14th April

2025, Accused No.1-Nilesh Bajirao Pekhale went to her parents'

residence as she had gone to her parents' house and threatened

and molested her. Accused No.1 threatened the wife of the

deceased saying that if sexual relations are not kept with him, then

the deceased i.e. husband of said Pranali Doiphode would be

involved in a false crime and he would be killed. Accused No.1 had

further stated that he is belonging to a political party and he is

having good relations with Police. Immediately, thereafter, said

Pranali Doiphode informed about the said incident to her husband

Page 2 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 ::: 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

i.e. deceased Hitesh Doiphode and other relatives. Said deceased

Hitesh Doiphode therefore called Accused No.1-Nilesh Bajirao

Pekhale and sought explanation for the said conduct and in view of

the same all Accused by using iron rod, knife and sickle assaulted

the deceased Hitesh. The deceased suffered 32 injuries including

on the vital parts of the body namely, neck, back, face, head, arm,

shoulder, right hand, chin, lips, eyebrows and fracture of the nasal

bone. The deceaed succumbed to the injuries immediately.

5. It is the submission of Ms. Khan, learned Counsel for the

Applicant that FIR does not mention the name of the present

Applicant. She submits that even the entire Charge-sheet sheet

does not mention about the name of the present Applicant as also

no role has been attributed to the present Applicant.

6. On the other hand, Ms. Mulekar, learned APP, strongly

opposes the Application. She submits that all the Accused brutally

assaulted the deceased with weapons like iron rod, knife and sickle

on the vital part of the body and the deceased was killed. She

submits that two witnesses have specifically taken the name of the

Applicant and therefore the contention raised by Ms. Sana Raees

Page 3 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 ::: 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

Khan that none of the witnesses have taken the name of the

Applicant is incorrect.

7. As far as the statement of witness-Sujit alias Bunty Gopal

Jarude, Ms. Sana Khan, learned Counsel submits that the same is

extra-judicial confession and cannot be relied upon and relies on

the Judge of the Supreme Court in the case of Subramanya v. State

of Karnataka 1, and more particularly on Paragraph No.52 of the

same.

8. However, perusal of the various statements, shows that it is

specifically mentioned that Accused No.1-Nilesh Bajirao Pekhale

along with two persons have assaulted the deceased. The

statement of witness-Pratik Bapu Ahire, specifically records that

when the incident took place, he had seen Nilesh Pekhale i.e.

Accused No.1 was having a sickle and it is specifically mentioned

that his brother was present and the deceased was lying on the

ground. Although crowd was gathered, Accused No.1-Nilesh was

abusing everybody and threatening the people and asking them to

go away. Statement of Sujit alias Bunty Gopal Jarude, specifically

1 (2023) 11 SCC 255

Page 4 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 ::: 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

records that although people were insisting that deceased should

be immediately taken to the hospital, Accused No.3 i.e. father of

the present Applicant stated that all the Accused have killed the

deceased and they would take the deceased to the hospital. In fact,

thereafter Accused No.1-Nilesh took the deceased in his car to the

hospital.

9. Thus, there is no substance in the contentions raised by Ms.

Khan, learned Counsel for the Applicant, that the Applicant's name

is not mentioned in the entire Charge-sheet.

10. She has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in

the case of Subramanya (supra) and more particularly on

Paragraph No.52 of the same, as witness-Sujit alias Bunty Gopal

Jarude has stated that Accused No.3 has stated that Accused No.1-

Nilesh, Accused No.2-Satish i.e. the present Applicant and himself

i.e. Accused No.3 has assaulted the deceased. Said Paragraph

No.52 of the said decision of Subramanya (supra), reads as

under :-

"52. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by

Page 5 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 ::: 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility."

(Emphasis added)

11. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the said

Judgment is arising out of a case where trial is completed and

Appeal filed in the High Court is also disposed of. Even the said

Judgment also records that an extra-judicial confession, if

voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied

upon by the Court and such confession will have to be proved like

Page 6 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 ::: 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

any other fact. In fact, said Paragraph No.52 records that it is not

open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial

confession is a weak type of evidence.

12. In any case, this is an Anticipatory Bail Application. The

offence is of murder. The offence has taken place in a brutal

manner. There is material on record showing the involvement of

the Applicant in the crime.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty

vs. State of Maharashtra 2, held that anticipatory bail is an

exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine

manner. There must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence

of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offences.

It has been further observed that the Court should be very cautious

while dealing with the applications for anticipatory bail as the

grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious

cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the

investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489

Page 7 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 ::: 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

tampering or distraction of the evidence. The said observations of

the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to the present case.

14. This is a case where the Applicant is absconding. The

Supreme Court in the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) 3, has

held that this extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail need not be

granted to a person who is absconding. Paragraph No.12 of the

said decision of Lavesh (supra) reads as under :-

"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding"

and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

15. The Supreme Court has further held in the case of State Rep.

By the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma 4 that the custodial interrogation is

qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect

who has been granted favourable order under Section 438 of Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (i.e. Section 482 of BNSS). It has

3 (2012) 8 SCC 730 4 (1997) 7 SCC 187

Page 8 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 ::: 907-ABA-323-2026.DOC

been held that, in serious crime for effective interrogation of a

suspected person custodial interrogation is necessary.

16. This is a case where, as per the prosecution case, the

deceased has been mercilessly assaulted by all the Accused and

died in the said assault.

17. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for

grant of anticipatory bail.

18. The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]

Page 9 Arjun

::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:28:43 :::