‘Highly doubtful’ that Maurice’s bodyguard was complicit in Ghosalkar’s murder says sessions court, grants him bail | Mumbai News – Times of India
MUMBAI: The Sessions Court in the city granted bail to Amarendra Mishra who is an accused in the Feb 8 Abhishek Ghosalkar murder case, finding no prima facie proof of his complicity in the firing of fatal shots at the Shiv Sena (UBT) member and former corporator.
Additional sessions Judge V M Pathade while granting bail observed that the material on record shows Mishra’s involvement in the murder is “highly doubtful’’.The court order of June 26, available on Monday said as far as the offences under Arms Act are concerned they are not punishable with life imprisonment or death sentence and hence exercised its discretion to grant him bail.
Mishra, 44, a resident of Bhayandar, was arrested on Feb 9, 2024. Ghoshalkar had five bullets pumped into him allegedly by one Mauris Noronha, who then allegedly shot himself dead too in Borivali, in suburban Mumbai. Mishra was Maurice’s bodyguard.
Mishra through his advocates Ganesh Gole and Ateet Shirodkar said he holds a firearm licence and a licenced firearm, issued in Uttar Pradesh, entitling him to carry it countrywide.
Gole said when Mishra came to Maurice’s office, he was asked to accompany his personal assistant Mehul Parekh to Karuna Hospital for Parekh’s mother’s treatment but asked him to keep the firearm in the office since the hospital would not allow him inside. Mishra said he kept it in the office locker and took its key with him. But he added that he was unaware that the locker could also be opened with a passcode, known to Maurice. The Court said the reason to keep the pistol seems “probable’’ as he was “expected to follow his master’s commands’’.
The defence was that when the alleged murder occurred on Maurice’s live streaming of his social media, shows that he was not even present at the time of the crime.
Tejaswi Ghoshalkar, the widow, who intervened to oppose the bail plea said the crime occurred due to his “negligence” in not carrying the firearm with him. The State through advocate Iqbal Solkar and advocate Bhushan Mahadik for the widow also cited an old case of 2019 under the Prevention of Atrocities Act against Mishra. They argued if released he may tamper with evidence and flee from justice.
Ghoshalkar’s widow also expressed her suspicions that Mishra was likely a part of the criminal conspiracy to cause the murder. The sessions court said if that were so, it could not have led to the death of Maurice.
The widow has filed a petition before the Bombay HC for a special investigation team, which had on May 6 directed the DCP to provide all investigation material including CCTV footage to peruse.
The court after perusing the FIR said, there is nothing acceptable to demonstrate that Mishra was present when the shots were fired at Ghosalkar in Maurice’s office. Besides, the chargesheet suggests there was only one entrance to the office. The FIR shows that only Maurice and Ghoshalkar were present in the office, the crime scene, said the court order.
Additional sessions Judge V M Pathade while granting bail observed that the material on record shows Mishra’s involvement in the murder is “highly doubtful’’.The court order of June 26, available on Monday said as far as the offences under Arms Act are concerned they are not punishable with life imprisonment or death sentence and hence exercised its discretion to grant him bail.
Mishra, 44, a resident of Bhayandar, was arrested on Feb 9, 2024. Ghoshalkar had five bullets pumped into him allegedly by one Mauris Noronha, who then allegedly shot himself dead too in Borivali, in suburban Mumbai. Mishra was Maurice’s bodyguard.
Mishra through his advocates Ganesh Gole and Ateet Shirodkar said he holds a firearm licence and a licenced firearm, issued in Uttar Pradesh, entitling him to carry it countrywide.
Gole said when Mishra came to Maurice’s office, he was asked to accompany his personal assistant Mehul Parekh to Karuna Hospital for Parekh’s mother’s treatment but asked him to keep the firearm in the office since the hospital would not allow him inside. Mishra said he kept it in the office locker and took its key with him. But he added that he was unaware that the locker could also be opened with a passcode, known to Maurice. The Court said the reason to keep the pistol seems “probable’’ as he was “expected to follow his master’s commands’’.
The defence was that when the alleged murder occurred on Maurice’s live streaming of his social media, shows that he was not even present at the time of the crime.
Tejaswi Ghoshalkar, the widow, who intervened to oppose the bail plea said the crime occurred due to his “negligence” in not carrying the firearm with him. The State through advocate Iqbal Solkar and advocate Bhushan Mahadik for the widow also cited an old case of 2019 under the Prevention of Atrocities Act against Mishra. They argued if released he may tamper with evidence and flee from justice.
Ghoshalkar’s widow also expressed her suspicions that Mishra was likely a part of the criminal conspiracy to cause the murder. The sessions court said if that were so, it could not have led to the death of Maurice.
The widow has filed a petition before the Bombay HC for a special investigation team, which had on May 6 directed the DCP to provide all investigation material including CCTV footage to peruse.
The court after perusing the FIR said, there is nothing acceptable to demonstrate that Mishra was present when the shots were fired at Ghosalkar in Maurice’s office. Besides, the chargesheet suggests there was only one entrance to the office. The FIR shows that only Maurice and Ghoshalkar were present in the office, the crime scene, said the court order.
