JOHN FERNANDES Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By a detailed Order dated 30-4-2010, the applicant-accused was denied bail for reasons stated therein. It was, inter alia, observed that "if the accused could threaten Milroy, the victim and her friend could not be left far behind. If the accused could influence the Colva Police(otherwise an officer recording the statement of Ksenia would not have suddenly stopped) the accused is bound to influence the course of trial as well". Since then, the trial has started and about 13 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution including the said Milroy Antao.

(3.) Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the said Milroy Antao has not supported the case, that he was threatened by the accused. However, the fact remains that the evidence of the said Milroy Antao has not been completed. Further cross-examination remains and so also re-examination. That was also not the only reason why bail was denied. The victim and her colleague Ms. Ksenia who are both Russian Nationals have gone back to their native place, and summons have been issued to them. It would be premature to contend at this stage that they will not come and depose before the Court. Summoning them to secure their presence is bound to take some time. Learned Counsel then submits that the applicant could be admitted to bail till the said two witnesses return to depose before the Court. I am not inclined to accept this submission, as well. Learned Counsel has also relied on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Prabhatiram v. State of Rajasthan(1991(1) WLN 391) where bail was granted considering the facts of that case, which are quite different from the case at hand. In that case it was noted that no injuries were found on the prosecutrix and she had not appeared before the Court. That is not the case herein.