Bombay HC denies bail to ex-BJP MLA Ganpat Gaikwad, who fired on Shinde Sena leader at police station

“If such an act is viewed leniently at the stage of bail, it would defeat the principle that no one is above the law, and it would dilute the authority of law enforcement agencies and the courts,” a single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed in the order.

The court also rejected the bail pleas of Ganpat’s bodyguard Harshal Kene, and Kunal Dilip Patil and Nagesh Deepak Baderao, who allegedly played active roles in aiding and facilitating the assault.

According to the prosecution, on February 2 last year, the members of two rival political groups gathered at Hill Line Police Station in Ulhasnagar, demanding the registration of criminal cases against each other. Around 9.30 pm, while Mahesh, the Kalyan president of the Shiv Sena led by Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, and two others were in Senior Police Inspector (PI) Anil Jagtap’s cabin, Ganpat and his associate entered.

Thereafter, a commotion broke out as both factions argued. As the police tried to pacify the groups, Jagtap stepped out of the cabin to manage the situation outside. The prosecution alleged that Ganpat took out a revolver hidden in his waist and opened fire with the intent to kill Mahesh and one Rahul Patil, and also aimed towards Chainu Jadhav, an informant.

Several bullets hit Mahesh, who collapsed, after which Ganpat sat on Mahesh’s body and struck him multiple times on the head with the revolver butt, as per the prosecution. Then, Kene allegedly entered and fired four rounds at Mahesh, slapped Jadhav, and, along with Patil, restrained and assaulted Mahesh’s bodyguard, trying to snatch his firearm.

The accused were arrested under offences of attempted murder and unlawful assembly with common object to cause terror within precincts of police station, among others.

Senior advocate Kevic Setalvad, for Ganpat, said his act was “not premeditated” and without prior intention to visit the police station or assault anyone.

The judge considered the “heinousness of the offence, the strong prima facie evidence, the likelihood of witness intimidation, and the need to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice” and found “no justification to grant bail” to Ganpat “at this stage”. The high court also referred to prima facie material records, including CCTV footage, ballistic and forensic reports.

The high court observed that the offence, if proved, “is not only heinous but also indicative of a complete disregard for the rule of law and public safety” and said that Ganpat’s “own post-incident conduct raised serious concerns over possibility of obstruction of justice” if released on bail.

The judge added that “need to preserve public confidence in the justice system outweigh the personal liberty of the applicant” at the present stage.

The high court also said that Kene’s conduct was of “calculated action in support of his employer and was not an impulsive act of defence” and “law does not permit a person with a licensed weapon to take law into his own hands in such a manner”.

Rejecting pleas by Patil and Baderao, the high court said their conduct showed they obstructed public servants from discharging duty and “directly assisted” the principal accused in carrying out a violent and life-threatening assault.