Panaji, Aug 25 (TOI): Rejecting the bail plea filed by former PWD minister Churchill Alemao seeking release as former chief minister Digambar Kamat had got anticipatory bail, a special court on Monday declined to grant him bail as there is no change in circumstances in the alleged 6 crore Louis Berger bribery case.
While rejecting the application of Alemao for the second time, the special judge B P Deshpande held that the notings in the files and remarks of the chief secretary speak for itself and, therefore, the role played by the Alemao is much different and more specific than the role of the other accused (Kamat), who is granted anticipatory bail only on technical ground," Deshpande observed.
"After considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there is no change in the circumstance from the time of rejection of first bail which was only two days prior to filing of present bail application and, secondly, the applicant cannot claim bail on parity. Therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected," the judge observed.
Alemao was arrested on August 5 and since then he is in custody.
His first bail application was rejected on August 17 and he filed a second bail application on August 19 after Kamat got bail.
On August 20, Alemao's lawyer argued before the special court that Alemao be granted bail in the case as former chief minister Digambar Kamat, who is the main accused in the case, has been granted anticipatory bail. Special public prosecutor Rajeev Gomes contended that the bail application is not tenable as there is no change in the circumstance and the applicant is not entitled to claim parity.
"Granting of bail to the other accused on technical ground in the same crime cannot be considered as change in the circumstance of the case of the present accused as such a change has to be in connection to the case/allegations/ evidence against the accused, who is claiming bail on such ground," Deshpande further observed that while considering bail of different accused, the court has to find out whether they stand on the same footing or not. Even if the role assigned to various accused is the same, yet, they may stand on a different footing as the part played by each accused may be different.
On the role allegedly played by Alemao and the other accused, Deshpande noted that the record clearly shows that Alemao had deliberately kept the file of the project pending and also formed separate committees even though it was not permissible as per JICA regulations with the only intention to take the project in his control and pressurized the consultant to accept the terms.
On the argument of Alemao's lawyer that there was flagrant violation of the provision of Section 41 Cr.PC while arresting Alemao, Deshpande observed that at the time of the first remand, Alemao and his counsel did not raise such aspect and, in fact, conceded that there is compliance of Section 41 of the Code.