The Chinchin im sarpanch assault case took a dramatic legal turn on Friday. Malcolm Agnelo Pereira, 47, of Bamadou, Chinchinim, the accused in the alleged assault on Chinchinim-Deussua Sarpanch and Aam Aad mi Party (AAP) working president Gerson Gomes, secured ad-interim pro tection from arrest from the High Court of Bombay at Goa after his anticipa tory bail plea was rejected by the District & Sessions Court, Margao earlier in the day. The development dramatically changed the status of the case, with the High Court imposing restrictions on Pereira’s movement and contact with the complainant’s family. The High Court has directed Pereira not to enter Chin chinim until September 22 and not to leave Goa until fur ther orders. According to his lawyer, Adv Amey Prabudessai, he has also been directed to furnish a bond of Rs 50,000. The High Court matter was taken up urgently before the vacation pe riod, with Adv Vibhav Amonkar appearing for Pereira.
The development drew a strong reaction from Aam Aad mi Party (AAP) leaders, who welcomed the conditions im posed by the High Court but questioned the police action and highlighted the observations made by the Sessions Court while rejecting Pereira’s anticipatory bail plea. The relief came after Pereira’s defence immediately ap proached the High Court following the Sessions Court re jection. Adv Amey Prabudessai said the matter was taken up urgently by the HC after the Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, with the defence immediately approaching the High Court because of the impending Ga nesh Chaturthi vacation and the September 13 church fair in Chinchinim, where the Sopo collection was at the centre of the dispute. He said the defence was pleased with the HC order and credited Amonkar’s arguments for the ad-inter im relief. The matter will now come up before the High Court on September 22.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Adv Ohm Stanley, appearing for Gomes, said Adv Ryan Menezes had appeared at short notice in the High Court for the intervenor (complainant) on Friday and that their side would appear as intervenors on the next hearing date. Earlier in the day, the Additional Sessions Judge rejected Pereira’s anticipatory bail application after hearing the de fence, prosecution and the intervenor. The court found that statements of panchayat employees prima facie corrobo rated the complaint and that medical records supported the allegations. It also considered the allegation that Perei ra had again attempted to assault Gomes with a stone after the two had been separated. The Sessions Court’s order further dealt with the earlier complaints and material placed before it regarding alleged incidents involving Pereira and Gomes. It referred to the al leged wooden-nameplate incident and also considered the complaint regarding an alleged threat to Gomes after the case was registered.
The court observed that the material before it prima fa cie indicated that Pereira had assaulted Gomes while he was discharging his public function as sarpanch and said the alleged acts amounted to an attempt to intimidate or undermine the authority of an elected grassroots institu tion. A key issue before the Sessions Court was Pereira’s com pliance with the notice issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court noted that he had appeared before the police pursuant to the notice and handed over his mobile phone. It also noted that it had not found reasons recorded by the police for not arresting him as required under the relevant provision. The judge, however, held that this did not by itself entitle Pereira to anticipatory bail. The court said the decision on whether an arrest was necessary remained with the police and that the court could not direct the investigating agency either to arrest or not arrest him. The Sessions Court expressed concern over the possibili ty of witnesses being threatened, influenced or pressurised and evidence being manipulated if anticipatory bail was granted.
It said the possibility of repetition of such offences could not be ruled out and concluded that the investigation was still at a crucial preliminary stage. Speaking after the Sessions Court order, Adv Ohm Stan ley said the rejection of anticipatory bail did not make Pereira’s arrest compulsory and that the police would have to take a call depending on the circumstances. He also said Pereira’s mobile phone had already been attached when he appeared before police after being served the Section 35(3) notice, while other electronic evidence, including videos uploaded on Facebook, could still be examined. The case has meanwhile seen protests at the Chinchin im panchayat and the Cuncolim police station demanding Pereira’s arrest. Velim MLA Cruz Silva said the High Court relief should not be construed as a clean chit for Pereira, while welcom ing the restrictions imposed by the court. He said the Ses sions Court’s observations regarding the police’s failure to record reasons for not arresting Pereira raised serious questions about the conduct of the investigation.
Silva said the Sessions Court had prima facie found that the allegations concerned an assault on a person discharg ing his public function as sarpanch and had described the alleged acts as an attempt to intimidate or undermine the authority of an elected grassroots institution. He said these were observations of the court and could not be ignored by the police. Silva also expressed concern for Gomes and his family, referring to the distress caused to them and saying that Gomes’ 94-year-old mother had approached the Cuncolim Police Station seeking justice for her son. He said the family deserved to feel safe and that the investigation should re main fair, transparent and unhindered. Silva said the High Court’s interim relief should not be misconstrued as a clean chit for Pereira and that the re strictions imposed by the court had to be strictly followed.
He said there must be no attempt to contact Gomes or his family, influence witnesses or interfere with the investiga tion, and urged the police to ensure compliance with the directions. AAP Goa president Valmiki Naik, senior vice-president Sandesh Teleikar-Dessai and other party leaders also wel comed the HC conditions while highlighting the Sessions Court’s observations. Naik said the lower court’s observa tions raised a serious question over the conduct of the po lice, particularly its finding that reasons for not arresting Pereira had not been recorded. Naik said the Sessions Court had also observed that the material indicated a likelihood of Pereira threatening, influencing or pressurising witnesses, manipulating evi dence or repeating similar offences if granted anticipatory bail.
AAP said the High Court’s conditions should be strictly enforced and that the matter should be allowed to proceed through the legal process. Naik said the Sessions Court had also recorded that, con sidering the nature of the offence and Pereira’s past con duct, the possibility of him repeating such offences could not be ruled out. The court had further noted the possibil ity of witnesses being threatened, influenced or pressur ised, evidence being manipulated and the liberty granted under anticipatory bail being misused, he said.
