TEAM HERALD
PORVORIM: The advocate for Opposition Leader Pratapsing Rane and his son and Valpoi MLA Vishwajeet on Friday argued before the CBI court that the complaint filed against his clients by Dahej Minerals Naik’s had been based on hearsay.
Judge P V Savoiker later adjourned the hearing into the argument of public prosecutor Prasad Kirtani for August 1 at 2.30 pm.
The arguments in the anticipatory bail pleas of Pratapsing and Vishwajeet Rane continued in the CBI court at Mapusa on Friday.
Arguing on behalf of his clients, advocate Shirish Gupte contended that in 2008, when Pratapsing Rane was the speaker of the legislative assembly, he had written a letter to the mines department that NOC should not be given to Dahej Minerals to extract ore, as the location concerned was in settlement area.
“The complainant, managing director of Dahej Minerals Naik, has admitted that he never met Pratapsing Rane and hence the question of demanding Rs 10 crore by Rane does not arise,” argued Adv Gupte.
“Further, there is no record of payment of Rs 6 crore to Rane. Bhalchandra Naik has stated that he was told by his director Guirish Pai that Rane had made a demand for Rs 10 crore. Incidentally, Guirish Pai was not the director of the company when the demand was made,” said Gupte.
Adv Gupte further argued that the police registered the offence based on the news appeared in a local English daily (not Herald) and that too, without conducting proper inquiry.
“The police in its statement stated that when they interrogated Guirish Pai on July 14, he was in a confused state of mind and appeared to be under influence of fear. Hence, the contention of the police that if the bail is granted to Rane, there is a possibility that Rane may influence the witness, is ridiculous. Guirish Pai is the director of Dahej Minerals and not a lay man to be influenced by Rane,” stated Adv Gupte in the court.
“Dahej Minerals MD Bhalchandra Naik lodged a complaint based on hearsay and perhaps with political motivation to malign the image of Rane.”
“Pratapsing Rane has been in politics for over 30 years now and there is not a single police complaint against him. Hence, the allegations made against my client Rane are unfounded and submission made by the police that Rane should not be given bail is ‘untenable’,” argued Adv Gupte.
Since there was no sufficient time, Judge P V Savoiker adjourned the argument of public prosecutor Prasad Kirtani to August 1 at 2.30 pm.
