Bombay High Court Reserves Judgment in Sarpanch's Anticipatory Bail Application
The Bombay High Court reserved its judgment on Monday in the anticipatory bail application of Roshan Redkar. Redkar is the disqualified sarpanch of Arpora-Nagoa. His case connects directly to the tragic Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub fire. That devastating incident claimed twenty-five lives last month.
Court Concludes Week-Long Hearing
After hearing arguments for an entire week, the High Court concluded the hearing on Monday. Initially, the court was considering bail pleas from two individuals. It heard applications from Redkar and the dismissed panchayat secretary, Raghuvir Bagkar, together. However, Bagkar faced arrest on Friday, altering the proceedings.
Prosecution's Arguments for Custody
The prosecution strongly argued that Redkar's custody remains essential for further investigation. Assistant Public Prosecutor S Karpe presented the state's case. He stated that both the sarpanch and the secretary held responsibility for accepting the trade licence application for Birch by Romeo Lane. Karpe emphasized they approved it without demanding proper supporting documents.
Karpe detailed that the application lacked necessary paperwork. Only a leave and licence agreement was submitted. He further alleged the application was rushed before a panchayat meeting. It was not even on the official agenda, yet the licence was issued promptly.
The prosecutor made more serious allegations. He claimed the house number and the term 'night club' were inserted into the application later. This happened while the document was under the custody of the panchayat office. Redkar, as sarpanch, had access during this period.
Karpe explained this was a deliberate act. Using the house number of a neighboring property created a false impression. It made the club appear as a legal structure. This manipulation, he argued, aimed to help the party secure additional licences. The goal was to legalize the structure and obtain all other required permissions.
Defense's Counter-Arguments
Roshan Redkar presented a different narrative to the court. His defense argued he bears no responsibility for lapses occurring after the trade licence was issued. Redkar submitted that the secretary, Raghuvir Bagkar, kept crucial information hidden. He claimed Bagkar did not inform him or the panchayat about the ongoing violations.
Redkar also addressed the panchayat's inaction. He stated the trade licence agreement had expired. Despite this, the panchayat did not initiate any proceedings against the party operating the nightclub. Redkar explained his reasoning. He was under the impression that a demolition order had been issued. He believed the illegal structures would be torn down, which justified the lack of further action.
The court has now taken the matter under advisement. A final judgment on Redkar's anticipatory bail plea is awaited.
