MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday denied bail to former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Ganpat Gaikwad and three co-accused—his bodyguard Harshal Kene, and supporters Kunal Dilip Patil and Nagesh Deepak Baderao—in connection with the firing at Shiv Sena leader Mahesh Gaikwad and another party worker inside a police station in Ulhasnagar in February 2024.
“The offence alleged against the applicant, if ultimately proved, is not only heinous but also indicative of a complete disregard for the rule of law and public safety,” said justice Amit Borkar, while rejecting the former lawmaker’s bail plea.
“The act has the potential to discourage victims from approaching the police, undermine the morale of police personnel, and deter witnesses from coming forward. The law cannot allow a situation where citizens, especially those involved in public life, act as if they are above the law, even within the premises of law enforcement agencies”, the court added.
The incident dates back to February 2, 2024, when Ganpat Gaikwad, former MLA from Kalyan (East), and Mahesh Gaikwad, former corporator at the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation (KDMC), and their respective aides gathered at the Hill Line police station in Ulhasnagar following an altercation. The two political groups demanded the registration of criminal cases against each other.
While Mahesh Gaikwad was sitting in senior police inspector Anil Jagtap’s cabin, Ganpat Gaikwad and one of his associates allegedly entered, causing a commotion. As the commotion intensified, Jagtap stepped out of the cabin to manage the situation outside. Ganpat then took out a revolver and allegedly opened fire at Mahesh. After the Shiv Sena leader collapsed to the ground, Ganpat allegedly hit him multiple times on his head with the butt of the revolver, thereby inflicting further injuries, the prosecution claimed.
Following this, Ganpat’s bodyguard, Harshal Kene, allegedly entered the cabin and fired four more rounds at Mahesh. Kene, along with Patil, allegedly prevented Mahesh’s bodyguard from intervening by assaulting him and attempting to snatch his firearm, according to the prosecution.
Ganpat told the court that he was provoked after seeing his son being assaulted by the crowd. “No prudent or reasonable person would ordinarily commit such an act inside a police station unless provoked,” his counsel, senior advocate Kevic Setalvad, argued.
However, special public prosecutor Ashish Chavan submitted that the firing was not sudden or accidental, but premeditated. “The applicant, being a former Member of Legislative Assembly and a responsible public figure, was certainly expected to be aware that firing six bullets from a revolver at a person could lead to fatal consequences,” he said. Chavan added that the very fact such a grave and violent offence was committed within the premises of a police station demonstrates Ganpat’s audacity and disregard for the rule of law.
The single-judge bench of justice Amit Borkar noted that the allegations against Ganpat were of an extremely grave and disturbing nature. Noting where the incident took place, the court said, “A police station is presumed to be a secure place for redressal of disputes and protection of life and liberty. If a violent crime of this scale is allowed to take place within such a protected zone, it shakes the confidence of the public in the ability of law enforcement machinery to maintain peace and order. A person, more so a public representative, engaging in such conduct reflects not only disregard for the rule of law but also sends a message of fear and intimidation to the citizens at large”.
The court also noted that Ganpat entering a police station with a loaded firearm reflected a degree of conscious preparation and readiness to use force, rather than a spontaneous or uncontrolled emotional outburst. “A police station is not a battlefield. As a public figure, he is expected to exhibit restraint and respect the authority of law enforcement institutions. His actions, however, show the exact opposite—a conscious disregard for the sanctity of the police station and the rule of law,” the court said.
Noting that Ganpat’s spouse is presently a sitting MLA, which only adds to the family’s reach and influence in the region, the court observed that the political stature and proximity to power would naturally create an atmosphere of fear and pressure, especially for those who are likely to testify against him. It further said that granting bail to Ganpat at this stage may result in irreparable harm to the prosecution’s case and undermine public confidence in the justice system.
“Such an incident, if not dealt with strictly and if bail is granted at this early stage of trial, may send a wrong and dangerous message to society, that influence and status can override the seriousness of the crime and that the justice system can be circumvented by those with power,” the court concluded.