Panaji, Aug 26 (PTI) A Goa court on Monday cancelled the bail of Aam Aadmi Party's state unit chief Amit Palekar in the 2023 Banastarim accident case in which three persons were killed.
A senior police official said Palekar will have to surrender immediately and he will be taken into custody as per the court's order.
Three persons were killed on August 6, 2023 when a speeding Mercedes car hit multiple vehicles on Banastarim bridge. At the time, the Crime Branch had arrested Palekar for allegedly tampering with evidence and trying to produce a decoy driver to protect accused Paresh Sawardekar.
The conditional bail given to him by the additional district court was on Monday cancelled by the additional sessions judge Apurva Nagvekar here.
The Crime Branch last week moved an application seeking cancellation of Palekar's bail claiming he was given permission by court to travel to France but he visited some other countries as well, thus violating bail conditions.
In the order pronounced on Monday, the judge pointed out that the prosecution had argued that the permission was granted to Palekar on November 08, 2023, only to visit France.
However, the respondent (Palekar) has travelled to countries such as Thailand, UAE and Hong Kong without obtaining permission from the court, which was violative of bail conditions, the prosecution argued.
Advocate Nitin Sardesai, representing Palekar, admitted his client had travelled to four countries as specified in the application for the cancellation of the bail.
However, Palekar had not breached any bail condition, Sardesai told court.
The application for cancellation of bail is politically motivated since the respondent is the president of Aam Aadmi Party in Goa and has been vocal against the government as well as the law and order situation prevailing in the state, he told court.
Sardesai further said the order did not specify the name of any foreign country and, therefore, the permission to travel abroad is not restricted to any particular country (France).
After hearing the arguments, the court said the respondent had sought permission to travel to France and though the prayer does not make mention of the specific foreign country but in view of the contents of the application, the respondent's prayer to travel has to be treated and understood to have been restricted to going to France.
"The respondent has not come out clearly asking for the permission to travel to whichever country he wants in connection with his profession or leisure," judge Nagvekar said in his order.
By visiting foreign countries like Thailand, UAE, Hong Kong without prior permission from the court, the respondent has violated bail conditions, the order said.