Bombay high court rejects bail application of former BJP MLA Ganpat Gaikwad in police station firing case

Time of India

8 hours ago

Kalyan: The Bombay high court on Tuesday rejected the bail applications of former BJP MLA Ganpat Gaikwad and three other accused in the sensational case of firing inside a police station on Shiv Sena politician Mahesh Gaikwad last year.
Later, Mahesh Gaikwad held a press conference in Kalyan, welcoming the court decision. He urged that the case be transferred to a fast-track court, citing its seriousness, to ensure swift justice.
According to the prosecution, on the night of Feb 2 last year, members of two rival political groups—supporters of Ganpat Gaikwad and Mahesh Gaikwad—gathered at the Hill Line Police Station in Ulhasnagar, seeking registration of criminal cases against each other.
Around 9.30 pm, while Mahesh Gaikwad, who was the Kalyan president of the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena, was inside the cabin of senior police inspector Anil Jagtap along with two others, Ganpat and his associates entered the cabin.
A heated argument broke out between the factions.
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
As Jagtap stepped outside to manage the situation, Ganpat allegedly pulled out a concealed revolver and opened fire at Mahesh Gaikwad and his associate Rahul Patil.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
AI in video surveillance: game-changer or challenge?
Axis
Read More
Undo
He also reportedly aimed at Chainu Jadhav, an informant. Multiple bullets struck Mahesh, who collapsed on the spot. The prosecution further claimed that Ganpat then sat on Mahesh and struck him repeatedly on the head with the butt of the revolver.
One of the co-accused, identified as Kene, allegedly entered the cabin later and fired four rounds at Mahesh, slapped Jadhav, and, along with another accused, identified as Patil, assaulted Mahesh's bodyguard and attempted to snatch his firearm.
All four accused were arrested on charges of attempt to murder, unlawful assembly and conspiracy to create terror within the police station premises.
The advocate appearing for Ganpat Gaikwad argued that the act was not premeditated and that Ganpat had no prior intention to visit the police station or harm anyone. However, opposing the bail plea, Mahesh Gaikwad's lawyers, Abhishek Kulkarni and Sagar Vakale, pointed to the gravity of the offence and supported the prosecution's claim with evidence such as CCTV footage and forensic reports.
Justice Amit Borkar noted: "Considering the totality of circumstances, including the gravity of the offence, nature of the allegations, prima facie evidence such as CCTV footage, ballistic and forensic reports, and serious apprehension of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, the court is of the considered view that this case does not warrant the exercise of discretionary powers in favour of the applicant.
"
The judge said: "If ultimately proved, the offence is not only heinous but also reflects a complete disregard for the rule of law and public safety. The location of the offence—inside a police station—and the conduct of the accused raise serious concerns about obstruction of justice if bail is granted."
The high court said the principle of parity, though well-settled in bail jurisprudence, is not an absolute or inflexible rule.
It said it is a guiding consideration which must be applied judiciously and with caution. Merely because bail has been granted to one of the co-accused does not, by itself, create a vested right in favour of another accused to claim similar relief, said th ecourt. It said the court must be satisfied that the role, nature of allegations, degree of involvement, and surrounding circumstances of the applicant are identical or similarly situated to those of the accused who has been granted bail.
It said engaging in such violent acts within the precincts of a police station, that too against a bodyguard, strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law. The court said it creates an atmosphere of fear and lawlessness and sends a wrong message that even the police machinery can be rendered helpless in the face of political power or group violence. It said such actions, if left unchecked or viewed leniently at the stage of bail, may seriously erode public confidence in law enforcement agencies and in the justice delivery system.
"Therefore, looking at the nature and gravity of the allegations, the location of the incident, the role played by the applicants, and the potential impact on public confidence in the rule of law, I am not inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants for grant of bail at this stage," the judge said.