{"id":140957,"date":"2006-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006"},"modified":"2016-02-27T13:24:00","modified_gmt":"2016-02-27T07:54:00","slug":"gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D Jain<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, D.K. Jain<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1287 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nGOKUL BHAGAJI PATIL\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/12\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nK.G. BALAKRISHNAN &amp; D.K. JAIN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 1572 of 2006)<\/p>\n<p>D.K. JAIN, J.:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThis appeal by special leave is directed against the<br \/>\nOrder, dated 1.2.2006, passed by the High Court of<br \/>\nJudicature at Bombay, affirming the order passed by<br \/>\nSpecial Judge, Pune, in exercise of powers conferred<br \/>\nunder the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act,<br \/>\n1999 (for short &#8220;MCOCA&#8221;), whereby the application filed<br \/>\nby the appellant for grant of bail was rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe appellant, a former Assistant Commissioner of<br \/>\nPolice, Mumbai was posted as a senior Police Inspector at<br \/>\nMira Road, Police Station, Thane District, during the<br \/>\nperiod from 2.6.1999 to 13.5.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tOn or about 15.8.1999, on the basis of some<br \/>\ninformation about printing of fake revenue and postal<br \/>\nstamps by a gang, received by Mira Road Police Station,<br \/>\nunder the charge of the appellant, raids were conducted<br \/>\nat certain places. As a result thereof some persons were<br \/>\narrested and case (C.R. No. 274 of 1999) under Sections<br \/>\n257, 260, 420, 467, 468 read with 34 of Indian Penal<br \/>\nCode and under Section 55 of the Indian Postal Act, 1898<br \/>\nwas registered against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIt appears that an inquiry was conducted by the<br \/>\nAdditional Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural) in the<br \/>\nmanner in which investigation in C.R. No. 274 of 1999<br \/>\nwas conducted by the appellant and his team, which<br \/>\nrevealed that although the printing press, situated at<br \/>\nMulund and Bora Bazar, Mumbai, where counterfeit<br \/>\nstamps and stamp papers were being printed had been<br \/>\nidentified but the appellant and his Sub-Inspector<br \/>\nKakade (since dead), incharge of the case, neither sealed<br \/>\nthe said premises nor seized the machines; they ensured<br \/>\nthat Abdul Karim Ladsab Telgi (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n&#8220;Telgi&#8221;), the Kingpin of the Organised Crime Syndicate<br \/>\nand the prime accused was not arrested and remained at<br \/>\nlarge till he was arrested by Karnataka Police and the<br \/>\ncounterfeit stamps seized in the case were not sent for<br \/>\nexamination to the Indian Security Press. In nutshell, the<br \/>\nallegation against the appellant is that being a public<br \/>\nservant he not only rendered help and support in the<br \/>\ncommission of Organised Crime as defined in clause (e) of<br \/>\nSection 2 of MCOCA, he knowingly and intentionally<br \/>\naided and abetted the activities of the Organised Crime<br \/>\nSyndicate till 7.6.2002, thereby enabling them to carry<br \/>\non their activities for almost three years.  Thus, by<br \/>\nhelping and facilitating the Organised Crime Syndicate of<br \/>\nTelgi in continuing unlawful activities and deliberately<br \/>\nabstaining from taking lawful measures under the<br \/>\nMCOCA against Telgi and his syndicate, he has<br \/>\ncommitted offences punishable under Sections 3(2) and<br \/>\n24 of the MCOCA.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tBased on these investigations a case (C.R.No.135 of<br \/>\n2002) was registered against the appellant and some<br \/>\nother persons at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune.  The<br \/>\nappellant, who by then had been promoted as Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner of Police was arrested on 18.10.2003 by<br \/>\nthe Special Investigation Team, constituted by the State<br \/>\nof Maharashtra.  Since then he is in judicial custody.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tTaking into consideration the gravity of charges<br \/>\nlevelled against the appellant and, inter alia, observing<br \/>\nthat there is no reason to believe that the appellant is not<br \/>\nguilty of the offences, alleged against him, as<br \/>\ncontemplated under Section 21(4)(b) of MCOCA, the<br \/>\nSpecial Judge dismissed his bail application.  This order<br \/>\nhaving been affirmed by the High Court, the appellant is<br \/>\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tMr. A.V. Savant, learned senior counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the appellant, has strenuously urged that in the<br \/>\ncharge-sheet filed against the appellant there are no<br \/>\nallegations that he had indulged in &#8220;continuing unlawful<br \/>\nactivities&#8221; within the meaning of Section 2(i)(d) of MCOCA<br \/>\nand therefore his case does not fall within the ambit of<br \/>\nSection 3 of MCOCA.  Learned senior counsel submits<br \/>\nthat no inference can be drawn from the material on<br \/>\nrecord that the appellant was a party to the conspiracy or<br \/>\nhad abetted commission or facilitation of the crime with<br \/>\nwhich Telgi or other co-accused were associated and<br \/>\ncontends that the circumstances relied upon against the<br \/>\nappellant, namely, the alleged failure either to arrest<br \/>\nTelgi on 15.9.1999 or to seal the printing press could, at<br \/>\nthe highest, bring his case within the ambit of Section 24<br \/>\nand not under Section 3(2) of the MCOCA. It is, thus,<br \/>\nurged that the appellant having already been in judicial<br \/>\ncustody for more than three years, the maximum<br \/>\npunishment provided under Section 24, he is entitled to<br \/>\nbe enlarged on bail.  Learned counsel has also pointed<br \/>\nout that some of the co-accused, namely, R.S. Sharma,<br \/>\nMohammad Chand Mulani and Babanrao Tukaram<br \/>\nRanjane, against whom much more evidence is available<br \/>\nhave already been enlarged on bail by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tPer contra, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing<br \/>\nthe prayer for bail by the appellant, has submitted that<br \/>\nthere is sufficient material on record to bring home the<br \/>\ncharges against the appellant of facilitating the<br \/>\ncontinuation of unlawful activities by the Organised<br \/>\nCrime Syndicate. Learned counsel, thus, submits that in<br \/>\nview of sub-section (4) of Section 21 of MCOCA, the bail<br \/>\nhas been rightly refused to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tSince the provisions of MCOCA have been invoked<br \/>\nin the present case, in addition to the basic<br \/>\nconsiderations, namely, the nature and seriousness of<br \/>\nthe offence; the character of the evidence; reasonable<br \/>\napprehension of witness being tampered with and<br \/>\nreasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not<br \/>\nbeing secured at the trial etc;  which normally weigh with<br \/>\nthe courts for granting bail in non-bailable offences, the<br \/>\nlimitations imposed in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of<br \/>\nMCOCA need to be kept in view while deciding whether<br \/>\nor not the appellant is entitled to bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThe nature and scope of sub-section (4) of Section<br \/>\n21 of MCOCA has been considered and explained by us<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/1521187\/\">Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav vs. State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra &amp; Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Criminal)<br \/>\nNo.<\/a> 1358 of 2006). Interpreting the said provision, we<br \/>\nhave observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is plain from a bare reading of the non-<br \/>\nobstante clause that the power to grant bail by<br \/>\nthe High Court or Court of Sessions is not only<br \/>\nsubject to the limitations imposed by Section<br \/>\n439 of the Code but is also subject to the<br \/>\nlimitations placed by Section 21(4) of MCOCA.<br \/>\nApart from the grant of opportunity to the<br \/>\nPublic Prosecutor, the other twin conditions<br \/>\nare: the satisfaction of the court that there are<br \/>\nreasonable grounds for believing that the<br \/>\naccused is not guilty of the alleged offence and<br \/>\nthat he is not likely to commit any offence<br \/>\nwhile on bail.  The conditions are cumulative<br \/>\nand not alternative.  The satisfaction<br \/>\ncontemplated regarding the accused being not<br \/>\nguilty has to be based on reasonable grounds.<br \/>\nThe expression &#8220;reasonable grounds&#8221; means<br \/>\nsomething more than prima facie grounds.  It<br \/>\ncontemplates substantial probable causes for<br \/>\nbelieving that the accused is not guilty of the<br \/>\nalleged offence.  The reasonable belief<br \/>\ncontemplated in the provisions requires<br \/>\nexistence of such facts and circumstances as<br \/>\nare sufficient in themselves to justify<br \/>\nsatisfaction that the accused is not guilty of<br \/>\nthe alleged offence.  Thus, recording of<br \/>\nfindings under the said provision is a sine qua<br \/>\nnon for granting bail under MCOCA.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThe factors which have weighed with the High Court<br \/>\nfor rejecting the appellant&#8217;s plea of innocence and his<br \/>\nbail application are; (i) the printing press and other<br \/>\nmachinery belonging to Telgi was not sealed; (ii) opinion<br \/>\nregarding the counterfeit nature of the seized stamps was<br \/>\nnot obtained from Indian Security Press, Nashik; (iii)<br \/>\ninstead of granting permission to the police party which<br \/>\nhad searched the press to go ahead with further<br \/>\ninvestigations, the police party was recalled without<br \/>\neffecting the seizure; (iv) though the police officials,<br \/>\nincluding the appellant, were aware of the serious lapses<br \/>\non their part, yet no attempt was made to correct them,<br \/>\nwith the result that the prime accused Telgi continued<br \/>\nhis illegal activities between 29.8.1999 to June, 2002; (v)<br \/>\nby not arresting the prime accused Telgi, he allowed the<br \/>\nOrganised Crime Syndicate to continue its activities and\n<\/p>\n<p>(vi) though he had wide powers to stop the unlawful<br \/>\nactivities, he did not use them conscienously and in<br \/>\npublic interest and allowed the Organised Crime<br \/>\nSyndicate to continue their activities unhampered and<br \/>\nunobstructed.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tIt would not be appropriate at this juncture to go<br \/>\ninto detailed examination of the alleged crime in order to<br \/>\narrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the<br \/>\nappellant has committed offences under Section 3(2) or<br \/>\n24 of MCOCA.  What is required to be considered is<br \/>\nwhether in the light of the circumstances, enumerated<br \/>\nabove; (i) there is a reasonable ground to believe that the<br \/>\nappellant is not guilty of the two offences he has been<br \/>\ncharged with under MCOCA and (ii) that he is not likely<br \/>\nto commit an offence under MCOCA while on bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tWe have considered the matter in the light of the<br \/>\ninferences drawn by the High Court from the material on<br \/>\nrecord and the role attributed to the appellant. After<br \/>\nhearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the<br \/>\nview that the purported acts of omission and commission<br \/>\non the part of the appellant may not per se bring his case<br \/>\nwithin the ambit of Section 3(2) of MCOCA.  Nevertheless,<br \/>\nthe aforementioned circumstances do tend to indicate<br \/>\nthat as a public servant he had failed to take lawful<br \/>\nmeasures under MCOCA, attracting the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 24 of MCOCA.  Having reached this conclusion<br \/>\nand bearing in mind the fact that the appellant has been<br \/>\nin judicial custody for over three years, the maximum<br \/>\nperiod of sentence contemplated under Section 24 of<br \/>\nMCOCA, we are of the view the appellant deserves to be<br \/>\nreleased on bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\tAccordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order<br \/>\npassed by the High Court is set aside.  It is directed that<br \/>\nthe appellant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing<br \/>\na personal bond in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two<br \/>\nsureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of<br \/>\nthe Special Court, Pune.  He shall also remain bound by<br \/>\nall the conditions as stipulated in Section 438(2) of the<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure Code, 1973.  The appellant shall also<br \/>\nsurrender his passport, if any, before the Special Court,<br \/>\nPune.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\tAny observation touching the merits of the case<br \/>\nagainst the appellant is tentative, only for the purpose of<br \/>\nthis appeal, and shall not be construed as an expression<br \/>\nof final opinion in the matter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006 Author: D Jain Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, D.K. Jain CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1287 of 2006 PETITIONER: GOKUL BHAGAJI PATIL RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/12\/2006 BENCH: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN &amp; D.K. JAIN JUDGMENT: J U [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-140957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-27T07:54:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-27T07:54:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1732,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006\",\"name\":\"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-27T07:54:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-27T07:54:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-27T07:54:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006"},"wordCount":1732,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006","name":"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-27T07:54:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gokul-bhagaji-patil-vs-state-of-maharashtra-anr-on-8-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gokul Bhagaji Patil vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Anr on 8 December, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140957\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}