Why Digambar not arrested and Churchill not released?
GOANEWS DESK, PANAJI | 19 August 2015 23:45 IST
What is the major difference between the bail applications of former chief minister Digambar Kamat and former PWD minister Churchill Alemao as one was freed and other one is still in the jail?
Whole Goa is presently discussing – not granting bail to Kamat – but denying bail to Alemao when both were charged as ‘main co-conspirators’ in the Louis Berger bribery case on similar grounds.
Adv Cleofato Almeida Coutinho, leading constitutional expert of Goa, throws light on it in a very simple manner.
“Churchill’s bail application was to get released from lock up, but Digambar’s anticipatory bail plea was not to get arrested. One was arrested and seeking release, the other one was out and seeking no arrest.”
The criteria thus differ, according to Adv Coutinho, though charges were similar.
Perhaps this is the reason Kamat’s counsel Adv Surendra Desai vigorously argued on the grounds of section 41 and 41-A, which speaks about arrest of a person accused of certain charges.
He even quoted several judgements and what Supreme Court has stated in such case of situations.
However, Alemao’s counsel and senior Mumbai-based lawyer Ashok Mundargi did not argue on the basis of section 41 or 41-A.
In changed circumstances now, when the court has made several observations in Kamat’s bail order, it needs to be seen what new arguments are made in a fresh bail plea by Alemao.
It is coming up for hearing before the court and judge B P Deshpande.
Another argument went against Alemao is his criminal background.
The crime branch of Goa police had cited the whole criminal background of Alemao before the court.
It included his smuggling activity, his brother Alveranz killed while smuggling goods, he using fishing trawler for smuggling, his NSA detention, the sting operation when he was MP and even the incident of national flag, in which Alemao was actually acquitted.
Alemao’s counsel did not counter these allegations.
The court order stated while refusing bail to Alemao:
“… it has been pointed out that there is previous criminal record of the applicant and this fact is not denied by filing any counter affidavit which show that he contention of the Investigation Officer that the applicant (Alemao) is capable of tampering the witness and evidence of the case which is to his exclusive knowledge is having much substance and cannot be brushed aside lightly.”
In case of Kamat, the police had cited his criminal background of his alleged involvement in the mining scam. But the court observed:
“He also invited my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goa Foundation v/s Union Of India (2014) 6 SCC 590 to show that the report of Justice Shah Commission has been discarded by the Apex Court and no prosecution could be lunched on that basis.
At this state prosecution has failed to produce any material to even prima facie show that there is any criminal back ground of the applicant…”
thnx for d logical followup detais