The Bombay High Court on Thursday came down heavily on the Maharashtra government for its failure to arrest Vikas Gogawale, son of State cabinet minister and Shiv Sena MLA Bharat Gogawale, in connection with cross-FIRs arising from a clash during the Mahad municipal elections [Shreeyash Jagtap v. State of Maharashtra and connected matters]

Justice Madhav Jamdar repeatedly questioned why the police had not arrested Vikas despite non-bailable warrants, proclamations by magistrate and claims of intensive efforts to trace him.​

He also raised concerns about how the minister continued to serve in the cabinet even as his son remains absconding and beyond the reach of the police.

“Police are not able to arrest him. Why? He (Vikas) is not an ordinary person and the minister is still in the cabinet,” the judge orally remarked.  

“All are citizens. There are no special citizens,” the judge added.

The Court further said that rule of law in the State stood adversely affected as a consequence of police inaction.

“The position on record clearly shows that the rule of law in the state of Maharashtra is adversely affected,” the judge remarked.

The case stemmed from clashes on December 2, 2025, polling day for the Mahad Municipal Council in Raigad district, when rival groups of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) and the NCP (Ajit Pawar faction) allegedly came to blows despite prohibitory orders being in force.

Cross-FIRs were registered the same day - one naming Vikas and his cousin Mahesh Gogawale and others, and the other naming NCP leader Shreeyash Jagtap, son of former MLA Manik Jagtap, and his supporters, with both sides alleging threats, assault and use of a firearm.​

Last month, the High Court had refused anticipatory bail to Vikas, Mahesh and others noting their political influence while granting interim protection to Jagtap which was continued till January 23.

On January 22, the Court was hearing anticipatory bail pleas filed by other accused when the focus shifted sharply to the State’s failure to execute warrants against the minister’s son.​

Advocate Saurav Dhar, for one of the accused, relied on a TV9 Marathi news report quoting minister Bharat Gogawale as saying that his son was not absconding and was in contact with him.

Justice Jamdar noted that despite such a public statement, the minister’s version had not been recorded by the police.

“Why minister’s statement is conveniently not recorded? The honourable Chief Minister is so helpless that he can’t do anything about that?” the judge asked.

Justice Jamdar remarked that Vikas was ‘not an ordinary person’ but the son of a cabinet minister who continued to remain in the Council of Ministers, and questioned how he could remain absconding despite the machinery available to the State.

“If the government wishes, it can arrest anybody within 24 hours. If government doesn’t want to arrest, then they will file an affidavit,” the judge observed.

The judge referred to a newspaper report which said that cabinet minister had been given the honour of hoisting the national flag on January 26 when his son is absconding and police are not able to arrest him. ​

Advocate General Milind Sathe informed the Court that, pursuant to an earlier order dated January 17, an affidavit has been filed as per which police have been unable to arrest Vikas and other accused persons named in the FIRs despite best efforts.

He submitted that non-bailable warrants had been issued against 17 persons and proclamation would follow under Code of Criminal Procedure.

He further said that teams have been dispatched to various locations and the Superintendent of Police was personally monitoring the probe, with warrants to be executed and properties to be attached as part of the process.​

The Bench was not satisfied and insisted the State to show concrete, effective steps. He was displeased that the co-accused Mahesh Gogawale had managed to file his nomination for the upcoming Zilla Parishad elections.

When informed that the nominations had been filed through a proposer, the judge underscored that this only reinforced that the accused was obviously operating form someplace, even as the police claimed they could not find them.

The judge also emphasised that an ‘absconding’ accused could not, at the same time, be filing intervention applications.

“First ask your client to surrender and then you make submissions,” the judge said.

As the hearing drew to a close, the Bench was informed that the minister would contact his son and that Vikas would surrender by Friday morning.

Following this the Court adjourned the matter to Friday with a direction that Vikas should surrender before the hearing.