PANAJI
The Additional Sessions Court, Merces, has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Mahajan Ajay Gaonkar, accused of allegedly extorting money from flower vendors at the Shri Lairai Temple in Shirgao by issuing threats.
Judge Kshama Joshi, while rejecting his plea, held that Gaonkar had failed to cooperate with the investigation and there was every possibility of him repeating the offence in a more serious form.
As per the complaint filed before the Bicholim police, the Mahajan was collecting sopo fees for the sale of goods in melas, fairs and festivals etc, on the basis of an agreement entered into with the Village Panchayat. He, however, allegedly extorted money from flower vendors in the premises of Shri Lairai Temple at Shirgao, by threatening “to cut their throat with a sword” if they refused. The accused was summoned to the police station and was subsequently served notice for the next appearance, but he sought time.
During the hearing of his anticipatory bail plea, the prosecution alleged that Gaonkar had collected Rs 57,350 from vendors between April and July this year by issuing receipts without authority. Statements of witnesses have been recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bicholim.
The court took note of Gaonkar’s criminal antecedents, pointing out that eight cases had been registered against him in the past, including those under sections related to assault and threats. While six of them were settled, three remain pending.
Rejecting the defence argument that, as a Mahajan, Gaonkar was authorised to collect sopo fees on the strength of an agreement with the local panchayat, the judge clarified that the document permitted collections only during festive occasions and not for routine extortion from poor vendors.
“The applicant is extorting money from the poor vendors by threatening them, which is not permissible in law. Hence, considering the conduct of the applicant, there is every possibility of the applicant repeating the crime of a more serious nature also and may put his threat into action,” the Court ordered, adding,
“Hence, seeing the conduct of the applicant and as the applicant is not cooperating, the bail application deserves to be dismissed.”
