PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa granted conditional anticipatory bail to Rajesh Narvekar of Porvorim in the alleged cheating and forgery case.
The Court ordered that in the event of arrest, Narvekar be released on a bail Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties of Rs one lakh each. He has been asked not to tamper with the prosecution witnesses, in any manner, whatsoever and to cooperate with the investigating authorities.
The Applicant has been asked to attend the Porvorim police station, every day from March 15 to April 1 from 11 am and 2 pm and not to leave the State without the prior permission of the Court.
Narvekar had filed anticipatory bail application fearing arrest for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. According to the prosecution, Narvekar had promised a plot of Comunidade of Serula to Atmaram Vengurlekar and took money from the complainant by showing him certain documents which were subsequently been found to be forged and fabricated.
Later for return of the consideration, cheques were issued to Vengurlekar, which were dishonoured, and proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, were initiated which are pending in the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Panjim.
High Court Judge Justice Avinash G Gharote observed that the allegations of fraud were based upon the sole statement of one Peter Martins, attorney of the Comunidade but his statement does not support the plea of the prosecution. The incident was reported in 2018 and onwards and the complaint was filed in 2023. Much remains to be said about the nature of the investigation done by the police authorities in the matter, as the case diary indicates that it is slipshod and is indicated to ensure an acquittal, rather than a conviction. No efforts appear to have been taken for verification of the document from the records of the Comunidade of Serula, which was the first thing that ought to have been done on the plea that the documents were not issued by the Comunidade.
Though it was alleged by the Additional Public Prosecutor that there was a land mafia and a syndicate, the Court stated that such allegation itself required the investigation to be done in a manner which would establish the linkage. Rather on the contrary, the perusal of the case diary indicates that the position is otherwise. If at all there is a syndicate and land mafia, as is being claimed by the Additional Public Prosecutor, it is the police authorities investigating the matter, who should be taken to task for such slipshod investigation. Adv Vinayak Porob argued on behalf of the applicant.