Merces Court Upholds Bail Denial in Violent Mapusa Dacoity Case
A Merces court has firmly rejected the bail applications of two accused individuals, Safikul and Raju B, in connection with a violent dacoity that occurred at the residence of Dr. Mahendra Ghanekar in Ganeshpuri, Mapusa, on October 7 last year. The court's decision underscores the gravity of the crime and the perceived risks associated with granting bail.
Accused Claim Ignorance and Illegal Arrest
During the proceedings, Safikul and Raju B asserted that they had no knowledge of the crime, stating they were employed as cleaners at a company in Bengaluru. They raised serious allegations regarding their arrest, claiming that the grounds for their detention were never communicated to them, and no intimation was provided to their next of kin. Furthermore, they alleged that they were illegally arrested from their workplace, confined in a hotel, and transported to Goa in October without obtaining a transit remand from the arrest magistrate in Bengaluru.
Investigation Officer Counters Allegations
The Investigation Officer (IO) presented a contrasting account, stating that Safikul and Raju B are residents of Bengaluru but natives of Bangladesh. The IO emphasized that all legal protocols were meticulously followed by the Mapusa police station, including informing them of the arrest, detailing the grounds for arrest, and ensuring their legal rights were upheld. According to the IO, all Supreme Court guidelines were observed, with proper intimation given to their next of kin.
The IO further highlighted that a previous bail application had also been rejected, citing the heinous nature of the crime. The accused were noted for their non-cooperation with the investigation, and granting bail was deemed risky as it could lead to them absconding, tampering with evidence, or threatening the victims.
Court's Rationale for Bail Rejection
The court meticulously examined the arguments from both sides. It held that merely because the accused disowned the person who was intimated about the arrest, it could not be concluded that he was not their next of kin. The court added that the chargesheet clearly documented that the grounds and reasons for arrest, along with the intimation of arrest, were duly carried out.
In its ruling, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offence and the potential threats to the investigation and victims if bail were granted. The decision reflects a cautious approach to ensure justice and prevent any obstruction in the ongoing legal process.
Details of the Dacoity Incident
The crime in question involved a group of six or seven individuals who forcibly entered Dr. Ghanekar's home between 3 pm and 5 pm on October 7. They broke open the metal grilles, tied up Dr. Ghanekar and his family, assaulted them, and threatened to kill them. The perpetrators stole gold, silver, and the family car, with the total estimated value of the loot amounting to Rs 35 lakh.
In response to this brazen act, police teams were swiftly constituted and deputed to various states, including Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, and Meghalaya, to apprehend the suspects and gather evidence. The case continues to be under active investigation as authorities work to bring all involved to justice.
