ARTICLE
A sessions court in Goa’s Ponda Monday cancelled the bail granted to Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) state president Amit Palekar in an accident case, observing that he had violated bail conditions by visiting foreign countries without the prior permission of the court. After the Court of Additional Sessions Judge Panaji (sitting at Ponda) cancelled Palekar’s bail, police sources said a team of crime branch visited his residence Monday evening, but he was not found there. His phone was switched off, said a police officer. “Now that the bail has been cancelled by the Honourable court, we will move for his [Palekar] arrest, Superintendent of Police Rahul Gupta, in charge of Goa ’s crime branch, said. On August 6, 2023 at 7.30 pm, a Mercedes car driven by Shripad alias Paresh Sawardekar, under the influence of alcohol, crashed into multiple vehicles at Banastari bridge, over 15 km from Panaji. Three people were killed from injuries sustained in the collision and three others suffered grievous injuries. According to the police probe, the accused driver Paresh and Palekar, among others, had gathered at a house in Ponda after the accident and hatched a criminal conspiracy to plant an imposter as the driver of the car at the time of the accident. Palekar was arrested on August 31, 2023 for conspiring to plant a “dummy driver”, harbouring the accused driver of the vehicle from arrest, misleading the investigation and disappearance of evidence. He was granted bail on September 4 last year, with one of the conditions being that he will not leave India without the court’s permission. The crime branch of Goa police on August 16 moved an application before the court for cancellation of conditional bail granted to Palekar, claiming that he violated the bail condition by travelling abroad without obtaining the court’s permission. Police said that Palekar had filed an application before the court requesting permission to travel to France from November 10, 2023 to November 25, 2023, which was granted by the court through an order dated November 8, 2023. Police said besides a trip to France, Palekar subsequently travelled abroad on four occasions – Thailand (Bangkok) from January 25 to January 29; UAE (Dubai) from March 7 to March 11; Thailand (Bangkok) from April 18 to April 22, and Hongkong from May 18 to May 29 – without the court’s permission. The prosecution argued that according to the court’s November 8, 2023, order, Palekar was permitted to travel only to France since he had given details of his departure, arrival and documentary proof that his family holiday was booked prior to him being made an accused in the case. The prosecution submitted to the court that the order was not a “blanket order” to travel abroad to any country without giving details of departure and arrival. The counsel for Palekar argued that the title and the prayer was not restricted to seek permission only to visit France, but to travel out of the country and the prayer was granted by the court without specifying the name of the country. Therefore, he was permitted to travel anywhere outside India, the counsel argued, adding that the application for cancellation of bail is “politically motivated” since he is the president of AAP in Goa and has been vocal against the government. Observing that “the ambiguous prayer in the application is only an example of clever and witty drafting skills and nothing else, aimed only to bypass the condition imposed in the bail application”, the court said that the contents of the application seeking permission to travel abroad “clearly show that the permission was sought to travel to France” and “though the prayer does not make mention of the specific foreign country, that is, France, but in view of the contents of the application…the respondent’s prayer to travel has to be treated and understood to have been restricted to going to France”. The court said: “It is also necessary to be kept in mind that if the respondent had to ask for a blanket order to leave India without giving any details of departure, arrival and period of stay and purpose of visit, whether the court would have entertained such an application? The answer would be in the negative.” The court further observed that the respondent has stressed much on the nomenclature and the prayer part of the application without much emphasis on the contents of the application. Click here to join The Indian Express on WhatsApp and get latest news and updates None
What’s New
Spotlight
Advertisement
Featured News
Latest From This Week
Popular News
