Banastarim Accident Case: Court Cancels Bail Of AAP Goa Chief Amit Palekar For Travelling Abroad Without Permission

A sessions court in Goa on Monday (August 26) cancelled the bail granted to Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) state unit chief Amit Palekar in the 2023 Banastarim accident case–which resulted in the death of three persons, after observing that Palekar had violated the condition of not leaving the country without the court's prior permission. 

The court of Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Panaji (sitting at Ponda) Apurva R Nagvenkar observed that Palekar had in his application seeking permission to travel abroad, "had not come out clearly" about the country he wanted to travel to in connection with his profession or leisure. 

"Therefore, said prayer cannot be stretched to mean that it gave an unrestricted right to Respondent (Palekar) to travel abroad to any country without prior permission from the court. The ambiguous prayer in the application is only an example of a clever and witty drafting skills and nothing else, aimed to bypass the condition imposed in the bail application," the court underscored. 

The ASJ noted that the concerned investigating officer had filed a reply to Palekar's 2023 application leaving the matter at the discretion of the court. The court thereafter said, "It appears that said reply was filed believing that the prayer in the application was only to travel to France, supported by the required travel documents and affidavit. Therefore, said reply cannot be read against the prosecution". 

The court further observed that if Palekar had asked for a "blanket order" to leave the country without giving any details about his departure, arrival, period of stay and purpose of visit the court would not have entertained such an application. 

"Even for that matter in CRMA 291/2023 (Palekar's travel application), if the details of the France visit were not given, had the court granted such permission? the answer would be in negative as it would have been totally contrary to the intention in which conditional bail was granted," the ASJ underscored.

The court thereafter said that by visiting foreign countries like Thailand (Bangkok) between January 25-29, UAE between March 7-11, Thailand between April 18-22 and HongKong between May 18-29,  without seeking prior permission from the court, Palekar had violated the bail condition that "he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the court". 

The court thereafter allowed the State's plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to Palekar. 

Background

Palekar was granted conditional bail by the sessions court on September 4, 2023 in connection with the accident which took place in August last year at the Banastarim bridge near Panjim. In the FIR registered by Goa police, Palekar had been booked under provisions of the IPC including Sections 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender), 203 (Giving false information respecting an offence committed), 212 (harbouring offender), 120-B (criminal conspiracy).

The other accused had been charged with committing offences under IPC Sections 279 (Giving false information respecting an offence committed), 304(Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 337(Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), 338 (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and rules. 

Contentions

During the hearing on Monday, the prosecution submitted that Palekar was granted permission by order of November 8, 2023 to travel to France however he had subsequently visited other countries like Thailand, UAE and HongKong without the court's prior permission. It was submitted that the November 2023 order was not a blanket order to travel abroad. It was submitted that Palekar had given details of his departure, arrival and documentary proof on the ground that a family holiday was booked prior to him becoming an accused in the FIR and so the November order is to be read strictly as permission for travelling to France alone. 

Meanwhile the senior counsel appearing for Palekar submitted that the State's bail cancellation plea was "politically motivated" since he is the President of AAP in Goa and has been "vocal against the Government and the law and order situation" prevailing in Goa. It was argued that the November 2023 order does not specify the name of any foreign country and therefore the permission to travel abroad is not restricted to any particular country. It was also argued that Palekar had in its 2023 travel plea mentioned that he is a "frequent traveller" out of the country or "family leisure trips" and for "work" for consultations with clients hence the conditions in the bail order of September 4, 2023 was "affecting his livelihood". 

Findings

The court however said, "The respondent has stressed much on the nomenclature and the prayer part of the application without much emphasis on the contents of the application. Actually the prayer and the title of the application are always result of the contents of the application. The Respondent had given the details of his pre booked holiday to France and therefore the prayer has to be read in that context". 

It further noted that Palekar had in his travel application stated that he shall make himself available for investigation and trial as and when required and shall not flee from the jurisdiction of the court and had annexed the return ticket of the trip. 

The court said that permission was sought to travel to France though prayer in his application did not mention name of a specific foreign country (i.e. France) however taking note of the contents of the application, the court said that Palekar's prayer in the application "has to be treated understood to have been restricted to going to France" and so the November 2023 order was limited to that extent. 

It further noted that if the condition in the September 2023 bail order was affecting Palekar's livelihood, he could have other legal remedies to get the condition modified but he did not adhere to the same. 

Case Title: State Vs Mr. Amit Palekar

Counsel for State: Public Prosecutor R. Dessai 

Counsel for Respondent: Sr Adv N. Sardessai and Advocate S Sardessai

Click Here To Read/Download Order