Singham style: Supreme Court on Ulhasnagar police station shootout

The Ulhasnagar police station firing case of 2024 bore dramatic resemblance to scenes from the movie Singham, given how a political rivalry turned into a dramatic shootout inside the station, the Supreme Court said on Monday [Kunal Dilip Patil v. State of Maharashtra].

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the bail plea of Kunal Dilip Patil against a Bombay High Court order which refused to grant him bail in the 2024 case.

Patil stands accused of restraining the bodyguard of ex-Corporator Mahesh Gaikwad during a shootout inside the station, which stemmed from a bitter political rivalry and land dispute between former MLA Ganpat Gaikwad and Mahesh Gaikwad.

The Bench remarked that the incident felt straight out of Singham, cinematic enough to be a script on its own.

" This gave us memory of ' Singham'. It should be the story with the tagline from this story only," Justice Sandeep Mehta orally remarked.

Appearing for Patil, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave argued that he was not the one who opened fire and was not even inside the cabin at the time of the incident. He submitted that the allegation against Patil is limited to having restrained the bodyguard after the firing, while it was the MLA who actually discharged the weapon.

Dave further pointed out that Patil was not named in the original First Information Report(FIR), entered the cabin only after the firing and that his alleged role is comparable to that of co-accused who have already been granted bail.

At this stage, Justice Sandeep Mehta asked whether the firing had actually occurred inside a police station. Dave clarified that it was the MLA who fired from within the cabin.

Justice Mehta observed, in jest, that the incident was reminiscent of Singham, noting that it could almost serve as a storyline with its own tagline.

Dave then remarked that such a story would probably come out in a few years.

After hearing the submissions, the Court issued notice to the State of Maharashtra and permitted the petitioner to implead the victims as respondent.

"Issue notice… list immediately after service of notice. The petitioner is allowed to implead the victims as respondent number 2," the Bench ordered.

[Read Live Coverage]