According to the news reports, the incident, stemming from a violent gang rivalry between the factions of Arun Gawli and Dawood Ibrahim, left three people dead, including two police constables.
The accused is currently lodged in Mirzapur District Prison and has filed applications under Sections 227 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking discharge and bail, respectively.
Also Read: JJ Hospital MBBS intern found dead
Through advocate Sudeep Passbola, Rampatisingh argued that he had been falsely implicated due to mistaken identity and that there was no material evidence linking him to the shootout. The defence pointed out that only two assailants — Subhash Thakur and Brijesh Singh — were identified in the firing that killed gangster Shailesh Haldankar and two policemen at Mumbai’s JJ Hospital in 1992, reports India Today. The defence contended that with one assailant already discharged and the other convicted, there was no scope for a third accused. They also highlighted that the identification parade was conducted 32 years after the incident, the alias linked to him was incorrect, and there were inconsistencies in the medical and forensic reports.
Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves opposed both applications, maintaining that the accused's identity was firmly established through medical records and documentary evidence. The prosecution noted that Rampatisingh sustained firearm injuries during the police counter-firing and was treated at a hospital in Surat, where doctors and eyewitnesses later identified him.
Gonsalves also noted that the accused had refused to provide a DNA sample and had prior criminal antecedents, making him a potential flight risk who could tamper with evidence if released.
Also Read:Mumbai's JJ Hospital gets Rs 728 crore for upgrading facilities
Rejecting the discharge plea, Special Judge Mahesh K Jadhav, who presides over cases under the MCOC and TADA Acts, ruled that there was prima facie material connecting the accused to the crime. The judge observed that the question of mistaken identity could only be determined during trial and that the evidence on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed, reports India Today.
The bail application was also dismissed, with the court observing that granting bail at this stage would amount to a “mini-trial.” With both pleas rejected, the decades-old case now moves toward the full trial phase.
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.