Margao blast: Defence counsel denies sheltering accused

Margao blast:  Defence counsel denies sheltering accused
HERALD REPORTER
MARGAO, DEC 10
The defense counsel in the Margao bomb blast case submitted to the South Goa Sessions court on Friday that he did not give any shelter at his Mumbai residence to any of the accused in the bomb blast case.
Adv Punaleykar made the submission when Sessions Judge U V Bakre sought to know from the Special Public Prosecution S B Faria why the name of the defense lawyer is figuring as a witness in the case.
Judge Bakre further to sought to know from the defense lawyer whether the accused in the case had stayed in his house when they were wanted in the bomb blast case.
Adv Punalyekar replied saying that accused Prashant Ashtekar had come to meet him in Mumbai when he was declared as an absconder, adding that he ensured that Asthekar surrender before the court in Margao.
As far as accused Prashant Juvekar, Rudra Patil and Jai Prakash are concerned, the defense lawyer submitted that they had come to meet him when they were not declared as proclaimed absconders, adding that the accused does not become absconders merely because their names are carried in a vernacular daily owing allegiance to the Congress party.
Adv Punalyekar later told newsmen that a defense lawyer is under no obligation to produce a proclaimed absconder before a court. “If the offender or absconder wants to appear before the court, the lawyer is supposed to tell him to appear in the court and file an application for the cancellation as proclaimed absconder”, he added.
Replying to a question, Adv Punalyekar said he is ready to depose in the court if cited as a witness, adding that would give him an opportunity to bring to light certain things about the prosecution investigations.
Meanwhile, the Sessions court on Friday heard part arguments on the framing of criminal charge against the two accused Prashant Ashtekar and Prashant Juvekar.
Special Public prosecutor, S B Farai, arguing on behalf of the NIA, submitted that accused Prashant Ashtekar has also committed an offence under section 201 of the IPC for destruction of evidence.
Faria also argued for framing an additional charge of forgery against accused Vinayak Patil for forging the signature of Sonia Gaonkar to purchase SIM cards. In this respect, Judge Bakre sought to know from the special public prosecutor whether the forgery without any gain constitutes any offense.
In the meantime, the lawyer representing Sanatan Sanstha today served copies of the application seeking return of the items seized by the investigating agency during the raid conducted at the Ashram in connection with the blast case.
The case will now come up for hearing on December 21.