MARGAO: Principal Sessions Judge B P Deshpande came down sharply on the Public Prosecutor Ladislau Fernandes pointing out his lapses, during the hearing on the anticipatory bail applications moved by Babu Kavlekar and his brother Babal.
During the arguments, the Judge asked the public prosecutor why there was no panchanama made when Babu’s wife Savitri gave the key to the rooms to the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau on September 16 and in the absence of any document stating so how could he say that the keys to the room which had the matka slips were given to the ACB.
The public prosecutor mumbled that he had asked the ACB to give the documents which were not given. “This means that there is no cooperation between two wings of the police?” asked the judge.
Further, he rapped the public prosecutor by asking him to name how many criminal cases were pending against Babu Kavlekar as the public prosecutor in his arguments said Babu has criminal “antecedents as there are many cases against him.”
As the public prosecutor could not name the number of cases, the Judge reprimanded him by stating: “then do not argue like this.”
The prosecution’s case against the Kavlekar brothers was that they had committed an illegal act like gambling which spoils school going children and that they were not cooperating with the police and hence their custodial interrogation was needed more so to nab the various matka bookies whose slips were found in the rooms registered in the name of Babal but in actual possession of Babu.
Admitting that there might have been mistakes like the ACB not proving how they got the key, he argued that these mistakes should not be reason for granting bail.
Representing Babu Kavlekar, Adv Surendra Desai argued that the case against him was a political vendetta the FIR was filed against him in 2015 when the BJP was in power; now it is back in power when the raids were conducted.
He pointed out that the petition before the High Court by Kashinath Shetye did not name his client but had said police were being corrupt and politicians in power were supporting them, and argued that Babu though a politician was not “a politician in power” in 2015 or now.
His contention was that the case was filed against Babu only to humiliate and demean him and further stated that there was a total lull from 2015 till now when he was not questioned nor summoned by any agency regarding the FIR.
Admitting that Babu e has made money through his various companies, Adv Desai asserted that it was not ill-gotten wealth and further pointed out that both the raids on September 16 and September 20 were conducted when Babu was not at home.
Pointing out that the offence against Babu are all bailable ones, he demanded to know why he is sought to be arrested for bailable offences if not for harassing him. He also argued that corruption charges could not lie against his client as there is no proof the he had asked or gotten any gratification.
Dismissing the charge of non-cooperation, he said he cannot be expected to say what the police want and further argued that he does not have to be taken in custody for the investigations to be completed.
The advocate for Babal argued that the prosecution was totally confused in seeking his client’s custody when it says that the rooms registered in Babal’s name were actually in Babu’s possession. If the rooms were in Babu’s possession as claimed then Babal may not be taken into custody, he argued.
Judge Deshpande heard the arguments for and against the bail application on Wednesday. He posted the case for orders on Thursday, October 5.
