Kalyan: The Bombay high court on Tuesday turned down the bail applications of previous BJP MLA Ganpat Gaikwad and 3 other implicated in the astonishing case of shooting inside a police headquarters on Shiv Sena political leader Mahesh Gaikwad in 2015.Later On, Mahesh Gaikwad held an interview in Kalyan, inviting the court choice. He advised that the case be moved to a fast-track court, mentioning its severity, to make sure speedy justice.According to the prosecution, on the night of Feb 2 in 2015, members of 2 competing political groups– fans of Ganpat Gaikwad and Mahesh Gaikwad– collected at the Hill Line Police Station in Ulhasnagar, looking for registration of criminal cases versus 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 authorities inspector Anil Jagtap together with 2 others, Ganpat and his partners went into the cabin.
A heated argument broke out in between the factions.
As Jagtap stepped outdoors to handle the circumstance, Ganpat presumably took out a hidden revolver and opened fire at Mahesh Gaikwad and his associate Rahul Patil.
He likewise supposedly targeted at Chainu Jadhav, an informant. Numerous bullets struck Mahesh, who collapsed on the area. The prosecution even more declared that Ganpat then rested on Mahesh and struck him consistently on the head with the butt of the revolver.Among the co-accused, recognized as Kene, presumably got in the cabin later on and fired 4 rounds at Mahesh, slapped Jadhav, and, together with another implicated, determined as Patil, attacked Mahesh’s bodyguard and tried to nab his gun.
All 4 implicated were apprehended on charges of effort to murder, illegal assembly and conspiracy to develop horror within the police headquarters facilities.The supporter standing for Ganpat Gaikwad argued that the act was not premeditated which Ganpat had no previous intent to go to the police headquarters or damage anybody. Opposing the bail plea, Mahesh Gaikwad’s attorneys, Abhishek Kulkarni and Sagar Vakale, pointed to the gravity of the offense and supported the prosecution’s claim with proof such as CCTV video and forensic reports.Justice Amit Borkar kept in mind: “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 stated: “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 stated the concept of parity, though well-settled in bail jurisprudence, is not an outright or inflexible guideline.
It stated it is a directing factor to consider which needs to be used sensibly and with care. Simply due to the fact that bail has actually been given to among the co-accused does not, by itself, produce a vested right in favour of another implicated to declare comparable relief, stated th ecourt. It stated the court should be pleased that the function, nature of accusations, degree of participation, and surrounding situations of the candidate equal or likewise located to those of the implicated who has actually been approved bail.It stated participating in such violent acts within the precincts of a police headquarters, that too versus a bodyguard, strikes at the extremely structure of the guideline of law. The court stated it produces an environment of worry and lawlessness and sends out an incorrect message that even the authorities equipment can be rendered powerless in the face of political power or group violence. It stated such actions, if left unattended or seen leniently at the phase of bail, might seriously deteriorate public self-confidence in police and in the justice shipment 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 stated.
