Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed the petition filed by the State Government challenging the bail granted to Samir Gaikwad, who is an accused in the Govind Pansare Murder Case.

A single-judge bench of the high court, comprising Justice Anuja Prabhudesai, stated that Gaikwad had not violated any of the bail conditions nor had he misused his liberty.

“Though the application for cancellation of bail was filed within a short time (in 2018), the matter remained pending before this Court for considerable time. During the interregnum period, the trial has commenced and 19 witnesses have been examined. It is stated that Gaikwad has not violated the terms and conditions of the bail and has not misused his liberty,” the order reads.

Govind Pansare was fatally shot in Kolhapur on February 16, 2015, and succumbed to his injuries four days later.

Initially, the local police handled the investigation, but due to a lack of progress, it was later transferred to the CID SIT.

In August 2023, after several years, the case was transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Squad. Gaikwad had been granted bail by the Sessions Court of Kolhapur in 2017.

The Maharashtra Government moved the high court, seeking the cancellation of bail on the grounds that Gaikwad's earlier two applications were rejected by the Sessions Court on merit.

Additional Public Prosecutor Prajakta Shinde contended that Gaikwad's two earlier bail applications were rejected as witnesses had identified him.

She argued that the offence is of a serious nature and, therefore, the bail should be cancelled.

After the initial bail applications were rejected, Gaikwad appealed before the high court, which was also rejected in July 2016.

Gaikwad then filed for bail again before the Sessions Court in June 2017, and this time his application was allowed.

Advocate Sanjiv Punalekar, representing Gaikwad, argued that Pansare’s widow had identified the co-accused as the assailant and not Gaikwad.

The bench noted that the Sessions Court entertaining Gaikwad's bail despite the high court's earlier rejection amounts to grave indiscretion, impinging upon judicial discipline and propriety.

“Judicial propriety required the Sessions Court not to entertain the subsequent bail application. The course adopted by the learned Sessions Judge in entertaining and granting bail to the Respondent, despite the rejection of his earlier application by this Court on merits, amounts to grave indiscretion which impinges upon judicial discipline and propriety,” the order states.

However, the high court noted that considering the statement of Pansare’s wife, there is prima facie doubt about Gaikwad’s involvement in the crime.

Therefore, the high court rejected the state government’s plea to cancel the bail granted to Gaikwad.

Case title: State of Maharashtra vs Samir Gaikwad