Court grants bail to 4 accused in Gogol masjid murder case

Colva: The South Goa additional sessions court has granted bail to four, arrested in connection with the alleged murder of Ali Kalandar Khan at Gulishtan Masjid at Gogol on Jan 31. The accused Sayed Latif, 29, Alam Shah, 38, Ubedulla Abdulla Makandar, 45, and Nizamuddin Sayed, 57, were taken into custody by Fatorda police.

While granting the bail, Judge Ram Subrai Prabhu Dessai ruled that the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out.


“It is an admitted fact that the murder occurred during a scuffle between members of both groups. The police ought to have investigated the conspiracy angle to prima facie establish that it was the intention of the accused and co-accused, who attended the meeting, to create a commotion, encourage physical fights, and specifically target the deceased,” the judge ruled.

The court found that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient material to substantiate its theory of a premeditated conspiracy. The accused have been directed not to leave the state without prior permission of the court, to surrender their passports, and not to interfere with witnesses or tamper with evidence.

The judge observed that it was not the prosecution’s case that the deceased was the leader of a rival faction or the principal opponent of the accused group in matters relating to the management of the masjid or its funds.

“Under the circumstances, a question arises as to what benefit the accused and co-accused would have derived from the murder of the deceased, whose role holds no particular significance in the controversy,” the court remarked.

The order noted that the prosecution’s assertion of a conspiracy appeared to lack substantial basis or material evidence and could amount to an attempt to implicate the accused without adequate grounds.

Significantly, the court pointed out that the names of the accused did not figure in the complaint regarding attendance at a meeting allegedly held the previous night at Makandars’ residence. Even if such a meeting had taken place, the judge observed, it could have been for reasons unrelated to the crime.

“In the absence of any material connecting the meeting to the offence, the theory that a conspiracy was hatched there cannot be accepted. Blind acceptance of such a theory would cause serious prejudice to the accused,” the judge concluded in the ruling.