Court Rejects Bail for Driver Pravin Panpatil in Constable Vijay Chavan Murder Case
The Mumbai Sessions Court on July 14, 2026, rejected the bail application of 21-year-old driver Pravin Panpatil, an accused in the alleged murder conspiracy of 42-year-old Head Constable Vijay Chavan. The victim's body was found dumped on the railway tracks between Rabale and Ghansoli stations in late December 2024.
According to the prosecution, the murder was conspired by the constable's wife, Puja Chavan, and her friend Bhushan Bramhane, who allegedly wanted to marry each other. The duo allegedly conspired with Panpatil and another accused, Prakash alias Dhiraj Chavhan, to eliminate the head constable.
The prosecution stated that on December 30, 2024, Bramhane and Panpatil arrived in Mumbai. Chavhan then invited Vijay Chavan to a New Year's Eve party. The three accused allegedly took the victim in a car, made him consume liquor, and strangled him once he was under the influence. They then threw his body onto the railway tracks between Rabale and Ghansoli before fleeing.
The railway police discovered the body and sent it to a hospital, where medical examinations confirmed that the victim had been strangled before being dumped. An FIR was subsequently registered, and a police investigation eventually led to the four accused.
During the bail hearing, Panpatil's defense lawyer, Umar Kazi, argued that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated. Kazi contended that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, that Panpatil was not directly involved in the offense, and that he was only targeted due to his friendship with Bramhane.
Public Prosecutor Abhijit Gondwal opposed the bail plea, arguing that Panpatil had actively contributed to the crime.
The investigating officer presented evidence to the court, stating that Panpatil and Bramhane had stayed in a hotel together and purchased the nylon rope used in the crime. The officer added that CCTV footage placed them at the scene, a video call showed them with the deceased, and multiple witnesses had identified Panpatil.
In rejecting the bail application, the court observed that there was ample evidence showing Panpatil's involvement. The court characterized the offense as a grave and heinous case of premeditated contract killing, noting a reasonable apprehension that the accused might threaten or influence prosecution witnesses if released.
