PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has granted anticipatory bail to Pooja Sharma, the main accused in the Assagao house demolition case while highlighting contradictory statements by the Special Investigation Branch (SIT) of Crime Branch (CB) regarding the necessity of her custodial interrogation.
In its order pronounced on Saturday, the Bench of Justice Bharat Deshpande also noted that Sharma failed to comply with the notices issued by the SIT to her.
“The contention raised by the Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai that there was no apprehension of arrest is certainly demolished by such a reply (during the hearing wherein he stated that investigation is required for which Sharma’s interrogation is necessary but not custodial interrogation),” the Court stated criticising the SIT’s approach.
The Court further recalled SIT-CB’s objection to anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, seeking Sharma’s presence in police custody, which indicated an intention to arrest her.
“Such an approach of the investigating agency is not in accordance with provisions of Section 41-A of CrPC. At most, the procedure as stated in Section 41-A(4) CrPC could have been followed,” the Bench said.
Earlier during the hearing, Sharma’s lawyer Adv Surendra Desai argued that under Article 486 of the Portuguese Civil Code, Sharma “ being the property owner -- is entitled to evict trespassers either personally or through the court. Faldessai countered this by asserting that Sharma, being a non-Goan, cannot claim this benefit and emphasised that the law favours Pradeep Agarwadekar and his family, who were in settled possession of the property.
“Sharma, residing in Mumbai purchased the property worth Rs 2 crores (at Assagao) with full knowledge that there exists a structure wherein Pradeep Agarwadekar and his family are residing,” he stated.
Faldessai argued that Sharma, an advocate, should have known the rights of a trespasser but still conspired to evict the Agarwadekar family with the help of bouncers and Arshad Khwaja. However, the Court found no evidence of Sharma’s presence in Goa at the time of the alleged offence or Dona Paula during the conspiracy.
“For the purpose of conspiracy, a meeting of minds is necessary. However, it is also a fact that the presence of one of the accused persons at such a spot is not necessary. The conspiracy could be hatched by persons from different places by different modes of communication. The applicant is admittedly the owner of the said plot and the structure. The incident of demolition of part of the said house with the machinery and in the presence of bouncers cannot be attributed to any person other than the one who is interested in the said property. The possibility of engaging such bouncers in carrying out demolition cannot be ruled out,” it observed.
The Court however noted Sharma’s non-compliance with SIT-CB’s notices but acknowledged her request for time to appear for the investigation. Granting her conditional anticipatory bail, the Court has directed her to appear before the SIT-CB on July 22 and file an affidavit to confirm that her passport is deposited with the Ministry of External Affairs.
