The Mapusa Additional Sessions Court has rejected the second bail application of Ganesh Gaonkar, who is accused of assaulting and murdering his younger brother following a drunken altercation earlier this year. The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and the strong likelihood of witness tampering, particularly because the primary complainant is the accused’s elderly mother, who resides in the same household.

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on the night of April 24, 2026. The victim, Dinesh Gaonkar, who was reportedly under the influence of alcohol, was shouting outside the family house and abusing neighbours. In her formal complaint, the 75-year-old mother of both men stated that when Dinesh walked toward the road through the wooden fencing gate, an argument ensued between the brothers.

The prosecution alleged that Ganesh pulled a wooden stick (danda) from the fence and struck Dinesh on the back of his leg, causing him to fall. As Dinesh sat injured on the road, Ganesh allegedly struck him on the head and neck with a piece of coconut tree trunk, delivering a second blow that rendered him unconscious. The prosecution also presented corroborating testimony from an eyewitness, who reported seeing the assault unfold in front of a gathered crowd. Dinesh later succumbed to his injuries in hospital.

The defence counsel, representing Ganesh Gaonkar, sought bail on the grounds that the relationship between the brothers was generally cordial and that Dinesh was prone to picking quarrels when intoxicated. The defence submitted that Dinesh had simply collided with a wooden barricade and sustained a fall. It also pointed out that earlier records—including an initial non-cognizable (NC) complaint and accident information recorded by the mother—attributed the injuries to an accidental fall, with no mention of an assault.

The defence further argued that there was an unexplained 13-to-14-day delay in lodging the formal FIR. It contended that the death resulted from septicemia caused by medical negligence rather than the immediate impact of the fall, and highlighted that Gaonkar had to care for his six-year-old daughter, who suffers from autism and seizures. The defence offered an undertaking that Gaonkar would stay away from Honda until the conclusion of the trial.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that the delay in lodging the FIR occurred because the accused had threatened his mother. It added that the autopsy report established the cause of death as septicemia and shock arising from pyogenic ventriculitis, a consequence of craniocerebral damage caused by blunt-force impact, thereby refuting the allegations of medical negligence.

The court noted that the complainant’s supplementary statement, recorded on June 22, 2026, explained that she had initially concealed the assault and reported an accidental fall because she had been threatened by the accused. The court further observed that whether this explanation holds up is a matter for trial, but noted that the shared residence of the accused and his mother posed a serious risk.

Ruling that the nature and gravity of the offence, along with the apprehension of witness intimidation, outweighed the grounds urged by the defence, the court dismissed the bail application.