SHAIKH SAJID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant seeks his release on bail by his application moved under Section 439 CrPC and in the matter of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was the applicant's case that he had come down to Goa to earn his daily bread and had no criminal antecedent of whatsoever nature except the alleged offence. He was placed under arrest by the Crime Branch in Crime No.53/2019 u/s.370(3) r/w.34 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act,1956 (the Act, for short), on 11th May 2019 and presently in judicial custody. A chargesheet was filed by the Crime Branch before the JMFC, Panaji being Criminal Case No. 196/2019/B. The chargesheet did not spell out the offence under Section 370(3) IPC. He had moved an application for bail before the District Judge III and Additional Sessions Judge at Panaji and thereafter before this Court. The applicant by no stretch of the imagination could be accused of an offence under Section 370 Subsection (3) IPC and which was not at all attracted in the present case. He undertook to remain present before the Trial Court or any other Court or any other authority as directed by this Court and assured not to tamper or interfere with the investigation or with witnesses. He had therefore to be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court.

(2.) Heard Shri C.A. Ferreira with Shri Anoop Gaonkar, learned Advocates for the applicant who invited attention to the chargesheet and referred to the various statements on record including that of one Suraj who was not an accomplice but had not been made an accused in the said Crime. He also referred to the statement of the victim girl and submitted that no case whatsoever was made to show how the applicant was involved in the Crime. He placed reliance in K. Radhakrishnan v/s. State of Kerala , 2008 2 KerLT 68, State of Bihar v/s. Jagrup Singh and others,1963 2 CrLJ 387, Mr. X. Central Kerala v/s. State of Kerala,2009 SCCOnLineKer 6407, Renu Bansal v/s. U.T. Chandigarh,2009 SCCOnLineP&H 4631, Bhagwan Singh v/s. The State of Rajasthan , 1976 1 SCC 15, Mohan Lal v/s. State of Punjab , 2018 17 SCC 627, Varinder Kumar v/s. State of Himachal Pradesh,2019 SCCOnLineSC 170 and P. Chidambaram v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation,2019 SCCOnLineSC 1380 while pressing for the grant of bail in his favour.

(3.) Shri P. Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the chargesheet has just been filed in the case and not much time had lapsed since then. The arguments on behalf of the applicant were touching the merits of the case and the Court while deciding the application of bail was to examine only whether a prima facie case existed and not otherwise. He distinguished the judgment in P. Chidambaram (supra) and submitted that no parity could be drawn with that case by the applicant. He also clarified that PI Rajesh Kumar was the Investigating Officer and not PI Rajan Nigalye being the complainant who had initiated the complaint against the applicant amongst others. On his part he invited attention to the statement of one Ambika to show that it met the ingredients of the definition under Section 2(f) of the said Act and therefore there was prima facie case against the applicant particularly under 370(3) IPC. The offence against the applicant was serious in nature and therefore he was not entitled to be released on bail. Moreover, one of the persons who had been released on bail in the said Crime was not available before the Trial Court and there was every possibility that the applicant would flee from the court of justice once released on bail and therefore the application had to be dismissed.