The Bombay High Court dealt with a criminal matter involving allegations of rioting and assault arising out of violent clashes during municipal elections in Maharashtra, which led to strong judicial criticism of the State’s law enforcement machinery. The case concerned Vikas Bharat Gogawale, the son of a sitting cabinet minister in the State Government, who was named as an accused in one of the First Information Reports registered following clashes between rival political groups during polling. The incident occurred at a time when prohibitory orders were in force, and the violence resulted in multiple complaints and counter-complaints being lodged by supporters of different political factions. Vikas Gogawale and his cousin were accused of involvement in rioting and assault, and they approached the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail. Their applications were rejected, after which the police were expected to arrest them in accordance with law.
Despite the rejection of anticipatory bail, the accused were not taken into custody for several weeks, prompting the matter to reach the Bombay High Court. During the hearing, the High Court expressed serious concern over the failure of the police to arrest an accused person whose location and identity were not in dispute. The bench questioned how the State machinery could claim to be unable to apprehend the son of a minister, particularly when there was no judicial protection in place following the dismissal of his anticipatory bail application. The court’s observations reflected unease over the apparent disparity between the treatment of politically connected individuals and ordinary accused persons in criminal cases.
The High Court noted that the delay in arrest had continued for more than a month after the sessions court rejected anticipatory bail, and yet no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the State. The judge questioned whether the rule of law was being uniformly applied and asked whether the executive, including the Home Department, was incapable of ensuring compliance with court orders when politically influential individuals were involved. The court observed that such a situation, if allowed to persist, would erode public confidence in the criminal justice system and undermine the principle that all persons are equal before the law.
During the proceedings, the State’s Advocate General informed the court that efforts were being made to secure the presence of the accused and that communication was being established with him. It was conveyed to the bench that the minister would speak to his son and ensure that he surrendered before the police. The High Court recorded this submission and made it clear that the assurance was being accepted with the expectation of immediate compliance. The matter was adjourned to the next day with a clear indication that failure to surrender could result in the court passing appropriate orders against the accused and potentially against the authorities responsible for enforcing the law.
The background of the case lay in clashes that took place during civic elections between supporters of political factions that were otherwise part of the ruling alliance in the State. The violence led to the registration of cross-cases, with each side accusing the other of instigating and participating in rioting and assault. The High Court observed that while the existence of rival complaints was not unusual in such situations, it did not justify selective enforcement of the law or delay in arresting accused persons who were not protected by any court order. The bench underscored that once anticipatory bail had been denied, the accused were bound to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the investigating agency.
Following the High Court’s strong remarks and directions, the State informed the court that Vikas Gogawale and other accused persons had surrendered before the local police. The surrender took place shortly after the court’s intervention, reflecting the impact of judicial scrutiny on the actions of the executive and law enforcement agencies. The High Court took note of the development, which brought the accused within the ambit of the legal process and ensured that the investigation could proceed in accordance with law.
The proceedings highlighted the High Court’s role in monitoring the functioning of the criminal justice system, particularly in cases where allegations of preferential treatment or inaction by authorities are raised. The court’s comments underscored the expectation that the police must act without fear or favour, regardless of the political status or connections of the accused. By questioning the delay and seeking accountability from the State, the High Court reinforced the principle that denial of anticipatory bail must be followed by prompt and effective action to secure the presence of the accused.
The surrender of the minister’s son marked a turning point in the case and demonstrated the effect of judicial oversight in ensuring compliance with the rule of law. The High Court’s intervention served as a reminder that the credibility of the justice system depends on consistent enforcement of legal norms and timely action by authorities. The case proceeded with the accused now subject to the investigation and further judicial processes, bringing the matter back within the framework of lawful procedure after a period of prolonged delay that had drawn serious judicial criticism.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.