The Supreme Court compared the 2024 Ulhasnagar police station shootout to a scene from Singham while hearing Kunal Dilip Patil’s bail plea. The Court issued notice to Maharashtra and allowed impleading of victims.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday compared the dramatic Ulhasnagar police station firing case of 2024 to a scene straight out of the Bollywood movie Singham. The Court was hearing the bail plea of accused Kunal Dilip Patil.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was dealing with Patil’s plea against the Bombay High Court order that had earlier denied him bail in the sensational case.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Naima Khatoon’s Appointment as AMU’s First Woman VC
The incident in question involved a shootout inside Ulhasnagar police station during a clash linked to a political rivalry and land dispute between former MLA Ganpat Gaikwad and ex-Corporator Mahesh Gaikwad.
Patil has been accused of restraining the bodyguard of Mahesh Gaikwad during the incident. However, he is not alleged to have opened fire himself.
While hearing the case, the judges remarked on how unusual the incident was. Justice Sandeep Mehta orally said:
“This gave us memory of ‘Singham’. It should be the story with the tagline from this story only.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Patil, argued that his client had no role in the actual firing. He submitted that Patil was not inside the cabin when the shots were fired.
According to him, the MLA was the one who discharged the weapon, and the allegation against Patil was limited only to restraining the bodyguard after the incident.
Dave added that Patil’s name was not even mentioned in the original First Information Report (FIR). He explained that Patil entered the cabin only after the firing had taken place and that his alleged role was no different from some co-accused who had already been granted bail.
At this point, Justice Sandeep Mehta sought clarification and asked:
“whether the firing had actually occurred inside a police station.”
Dave responded that it was indeed the MLA who fired the shots from within the cabin.
Justice Mehta, in a lighter tone, commented on the unusual nature of the episode, observing:
“the incident was reminiscent of Singham, noting that it could almost serve as a storyline with its own tagline.”
To this, Dave humorously added that
“such a story would probably come out in a few years.”
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Maharashtra. It also allowed Patil to add the victims as parties in the case.
The Bench ordered:
“Issue notice… list immediately after service of notice. The petitioner is allowed to implead the victims as respondent number 2.”
With this order, the matter has now been posted for further hearing once notices are served.
Case Title:
Kunal Dilip Patil v. State of Maharashtra.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on AMU
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
