Team Goemkarponn
MAPUSA: The Mapusa Additional Sessions Court has refused bail to Ganesh Gaonkar for the second time in a murder case involving the death of his younger brother, Dinesh Gaonkar, following an alleged assault at their family residence in April 2026.
In rejecting the application, the court took into account the nature of the allegations and the possibility that witnesses could be influenced if the accused were released. The fact that the main complainant is his 75-year-old mother, who lives under the same roof, was also a significant consideration.
The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred on April 24, 2026, after Dinesh, reportedly in an intoxicated condition, created a disturbance outside the family home and quarrelled with neighbours.
As per the prosecution’s version, a confrontation developed between the brothers when Dinesh was heading towards the road through a wooden gate. Ganesh allegedly first attacked him with a stick taken from the fencing, hitting him on the leg and causing him to collapse.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused then picked up a piece of coconut tree trunk and struck Dinesh on the head and neck while he was on the roadside. The victim reportedly lost consciousness and was later admitted to hospital, where he died.
The prosecution also cited an eyewitness account stating that the incident took place in front of several people.
Seeking bail, the defence challenged the circumstances presented by the prosecution. It maintained that the brothers had no history of serious hostility and claimed that Dinesh was prone to arguments when under the influence of alcohol. According to the defence, his injuries were caused by an accidental collision with a wooden barricade and subsequent fall.
The defence also questioned the mother’s initial version of events, pointing out that the first non-cognizable complaint and accident intimation did not refer to any assault and instead described the injuries as accidental.
It further raised the issue of the delay of approximately 13 to 14 days before the formal FIR was registered. The defence argued that the victim ultimately died due to septicemia linked to alleged shortcomings in medical treatment and not directly from the injuries sustained in the incident.
The court was also informed about the accused’s domestic circumstances, including his responsibility towards his six-year-old daughter, who has autism and seizures. As an additional safeguard, the defence offered to ensure that Ganesh would remain away from Honda throughout the trial.
The prosecution opposed the request, alleging that the mother had not disclosed the actual incident initially because the accused had threatened her. It also relied on the post-mortem findings, which attributed the death to septicemia and shock caused by pyogenic ventriculitis following blunt-force craniocerebral injuries.
The court examined the supplementary statement recorded from the mother on June 22, 2026, in which she reportedly explained why her earlier account had described the incident as an accidental fall. She allegedly stated that fear arising from threats by the accused had prevented her from revealing the assault at the outset.
The court observed that the circumstances surrounding the change in her account would be examined during the trial. However, it was concerned that the accused’s continued access to the complainant, given their shared household, could create an opportunity to influence her testimony.
Taking into consideration the allegations, the medical material and the possibility of witnesses being intimidated, the court concluded that the grounds put forward by the defence did not justify granting bail.
Accordingly, the second bail application filed by Ganesh Gaonkar was dismissed.
