The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has rejected a bail application from Ganpat Kalu Gaikwad, a former Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, who is accused of attempting to murder a political rival, Mahesh Gaikwad, inside a police station. The court's decision was based on the gravity of the offense, strong prima facie evidence, and concerns that the applicant could influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.
The Allegations:
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on February 2, 2024, at the Hill Line Police Station in Ulhasnagar. Mahesh Gaikwad, a former Corporator, was in the Senior Police Inspector’s cabin when the applicant, Ganpat Gaikwad, and his associate entered. The applicant then allegedly took out a revolver and fired multiple shots at Mahesh Gaikwad. When the injured person collapsed, the applicant is accused of sitting on his body and repeatedly hitting him on the head with the butt of the revolver. This entire incident was captured by CCTV footage inside the police station.
The prosecution's case is further supported by a ballistic report confirming that the bullets recovered from the victim's body were fired from the revolver seized from the applicant. Additionally, an audio recording of an interview with a news channel was submitted as evidence, in which the applicant is allegedly heard admitting his intention to kill the victim and showing no remorse for his actions. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) confirmed the voice in the recording matches the applicant's voice.
The Defense:
The applicant’s defense, led by Senior Advocate Shri Setalvad, argued that the act was not premeditated but rather a spontaneous reaction to provocation. The defense claimed the applicant rushed to the police station after learning his son was being illegally detained and assaulted by the victim's supporters. It was contended that a person would not normally commit such an act inside a police station unless provoked. The defense also noted the applicant has been incarcerated for approximately 17 months and that there was no risk of him fleeing or tampering with evidence.
The Court's Rationale:
Justice Amit Borkar, presiding over the case, concluded that the applicant failed to make a case for bail. The court highlighted that the prima facie evidence, including the CCTV footage, ballistic report, and the audio confession, suggests the act was deliberate and not a result of sudden provocation. The court also found the applicant’s criminal history, which includes previous charges under Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder), to be a relevant factor.
The court emphasized the seriousness of the crime, noting that a violent act of this magnitude within a police station undermines public confidence in law enforcement and the rule of law. The court also raised concerns about the applicant's political influence, as his wife is currently a sitting MLA, and the potential for him to intimidate witnesses who live in the same locality as the accused. The court's decision reaffirmed the principle that while personal liberty is important, it cannot override the collective interest of society and the need for a fair trial.
Accordingly, the court rejected the bail application.
Section 109., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 143., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 147., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 148., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 149., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 307., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 323., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Section 504., Indian Penal Code - 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Arms Act, 1959
