Bombay High Court: In a bail application filed by an ex-MLA who opened fire in the precincts of Police Station upon his political rivals, the Single Judge bench of Amit Borkar, J, refused to grant bail pointing out that the accused, if released, is likely to abuse the liberty granted to him or interfere with the fair course of justice. It was held that the CCTV footage and ballistic report being objective and technical in nature, lent credible and substantial prima facie material to justify the denial of bail, especially in a case involving serious offences punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. The defence of sudden rage did not withstand scrutiny and the material on record disclosed a pre-planned and violent act, which cannot be condoned at the stage of bail.
Court also opined that granting bail to the applicant when he has such political influence and has himself made clear admission to his crimes in interview to the private news channels, would undermine the faith of the public in the criminal justice system
Background
The applicant- Ganpat Kalu Gaikwad was an ex- MLA of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The injured person- Mahesh Gaikwad, was a former Corporator of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and also holds a position as Kalyan East City Head of a political party. The applicant and the injured person, belonged to rival political parties, and there was previous political rivalry and friction between them.
On 31-1-2024 and 1-2-2024, certain altercations were alleged to have taken place between both of them which led members of both the political parties to gather at the Hill Line Police Station, demanding registration of criminal cases against each other. Around 9.30 pm both the injured person and the informant were sitting in the cabin of the Senior Police Inspector, when the applicant and his associate entered the cabin. Members of both factions started arguing, when the inspector stepped outside the cabin to manage the situation. During this commotion, the applicant suddenly took out the revolver. Several bullets struck Mahesh Gaikwad, causing him to collapse on the ground. The applicant then sat on Mahesh Gaikwad’s body and hit him multiple times on his head with the butt of the revolver, thereby inflicting further grievous injuries.
Then, the co-accused entered the cabin and fire four rounds from his revolver towards Mahesh Gaikwad. He is also alleged to have slapped the informant, which caused him to flee from the police station. The co-accused allegedly assaulted the bodyguard and attempted to snatch his firearm. The entire act was alleged to have been carried out by the applicant and co-accused persons as members of an unlawful assembly, with the common object of causing terror, grievous hurt and attempted murder within the precincts of a police station.
In connection to these incidents an FIR was registered with Hill Line Police Station, Ulhasnagar, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 149, 109, 323, 504 of the IPC, and Section 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court observed that the applicant carried a loaded revolver to the Police Station, open fired within the precincts, and on noticing that Mahesh Gaikwad is still alive, rather than calming down, he inflicted multiple forceful blows on head using the butt of the revolver. This demonstrated the applicant’s intention to kill to ensure fatal consequences, irrespective of the location and presence of police officers, carried out with intent to cause maximum harm, which was contrary to the defence of sudden fit of rage and without any preplanning or intention to kill, taken by him.
Furthermore, it was observed that the nature of the allegations, the place of occurrence, and the conduct of the applicant, as narrated in the FIR and corroborated prima facie by CCTV footage and medical evidence, all suggested that the applicant’s act was not one of mere provocation or sudden anger, but a deliberate and violent assault carried out with aggression. The ballistic report also confirmed that the bullets recovered from the body of the injured person matched the firearm, specifically the revolver, that was seized from the possession of the applicant. This material on record was supported by the version put forth by the first informant and the injured eyewitnesses. The visual evidence captured in real-time provided an independent and unbiased account of the manner in which the incident unfolded, leaving little scope for manipulation or exaggeration.
Additionally, the Court noted that in his interviews to private news channels, the applicant made direct admission that he intended to kill the injured Mahesh Gaikwad and did not even express any remorse or regret for his actions. Such an open admission, made voluntarily to the media and not under duress, assumes significance while considering the overall conduct and state of mind of the applicant. The Forensic Science Lab (‘FSL’) Report also confirmed that the voice in the recorded interview is of the applicant itself.
It was also stated that the fact that the applicant was a repeat offender cannot be overlooked just because an accused is innocent until proven guilty. The wife of the applicant is a sitting MLA of the State. With the history misusing his political power and of violence against rivals it cannot be said that if he is released on bail, he would not try to threaten the witnesses as well as the police authorities through his political influence.
The Court opined that the individual liberty must be balanced with the interest of society and the gravity of the offence. While liberty of a person is precious, it cannot be allowed to be a passport for the commission of serious crimes. The Court emphasised that it cannot be oblivious to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed.
Keeping in mind the CCTV footage, ballistic and FSL Report, criminal antecedents and other materials on record, the Court held that police stations are meant to be symbols of safety for public, therefore, granting bail in the present case will not only jeopardize the safety of the witnesses but will also undermine the faith of the public in the criminal justice system, particularly in its ability to act impartially against persons holding social or political influence. Accordingly, the Court refused to grant bail to the applicant.
[Ganpat Kalu Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2839, decided on: 5-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Applicant- Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Rahul Arote; Abhishek Kulkarni, Sagar Wakale, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents- Ashish Chavan, Special P.P.; Mayur Mohite, Megha S. Bajoria, APP
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
