Mapusa, August 7: In a significant development in the sensational Bicholim firing case, the Courts at Mapusa on Friday rejected the second bail applications filed by brothers Prajyot Laximan Gaonkar and Girish Laxman Gaonkar, who are accused in Crime No. 77/2026 registered at Bicholim Police Station for offences including attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, criminal intimidation, house trespass and offences under the Arms Act.
The second bail application of Prajyot Laximan Gaonkar was rejected by the District and Sessions Court, Mapusa, while the second bail application of Girish Laxman Gaonkar was dismissed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-2), Mapusa. The order in Girish’s case was passed by Apurva R. Nagvenkar, Additional Sessions Judge-2, Mapusa, holding charge of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-1 (FTC), Mapusa.
According to the prosecution, on June 5, 2026, the accused brothers allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy against complainant Upendra Chandru Gaonkar, threatened him over the telephone and later arrived at his residence at Madhlawada, Shirgao, armed with a firearm. It is alleged that they fired at the complainant, who narrowly escaped, entered his house and fired another shot inside the premises, threatened his wife and thereafter trespassed into a neighbouring house while searching for the complainant, creating panic among the residents.
During the hearing of both bail applications, Public Prosecutor Shri S. Redkar appeared on behalf of the State and strongly opposed the grant of bail. Adv. Rakesh Naik appeared on behalf of the complainant, Upendra Chandru Gaonkar, pursuant to the intervention granted by the Court, and advanced oral and written submissions supporting the prosecution on issues not covered by the Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution submitted that the investigation was still in progress, that key witnesses remained under fear and trauma, and that releasing the accused at this stage could result in intimidation of witnesses and adversely affect the investigation.
While both Courts observed that the successive bail applications were maintainable owing to the change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier bail applications, they held that such change by itself did not entitle the accused to bail. The Courts took note of the seriousness of the allegations, the alleged procurement and use of the firearm, recovery of the weapon during investigation, and the prima facie material indicating premeditation.
The Courts further observed that the alleged use of a firearm had created fear and terror in the locality and that there was a reasonable apprehension that the accused could influence or threaten prosecution witnesses if released on bail. Holding that the gravity of the offences, the nature of the weapon allegedly used, the evidence collected during investigation and the possibility of witness intimidation outweighed the grounds urged by the defence, both Courts dismissed the second bail applications filed by Prajyot Laximan Gaonkar and Girish Laxman Gaonkar.
