YANIV BENAHIM ALIAS ATALA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Damodar Dhond, learned Advocate for the applicant whose contention was that the applicant was initially arrested by the Police Inspector, Banbasa Police Station, Uttarakhand in Crime No.19 of 2019 under Section 14 of the Foreigner's Order Act, 1946 for not having a valid Visa and that it was nowhere their case that the applicant was trying to flee the country. He had moved an application for anticipatory bail in the said Crime but which was withdrawn by him. Nonetheless, in view of the addition of Section 307 IPC to the said Crime number, he had moved for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Court and which rejected the application by its order dated 13/06/2019 on the ground that he may go back to his Country and may not be available for trial or any further investigation in the said Crime. He was never absconding in the said Crime nor was he trying flee the Country and that at the time he was arrested by the Police Inspector, Banbasa Police Station, his Anticipatory Bail Application was sub-judice before the Sessions Judge at Panaji, Goa and that these facts were not correctly presented and submitted before the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa, Goa.

(2.) The chargesheet came to be filed against him on 22/08/2019 and thereafter the complainant came to be examined between 19/11/2019 till 20/01/2020. The complainant had not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared a hostile witness and that he had not at all implicated the applicant in the said Crime and as such the matter was fixed for the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The bail application moved by him came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 14/05/2020. It was his further contention that the complainant in his statement had alleged that he was assaulted with a rod, however what was recovered was a wooden stick. A knife was purportedly recovered at the instance of the applicant but it was not shown to the injured and besides a stick was recovered which was also not shown to the injured. The car in which he was supposed to have run away from the scene of Crime was also not attached and the scene of offence panchanama was drawn after 17 days of the incident. No Test Identification Parade too was held in the matter and therefore it was a fit case to order the release of the applicant on bail. He placed reliance in Rajesh Govind Jageshah v/s. State of Maharashtra, 2000 CrLJ 380 to substantiate his contention that the Test Identification Parade had to be held at the earliest possible opportunity and not belatedly.

(3.) Shri Pravin Faldessai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State submitted at the outset that the applicant was an Israeli national who was caught at the border of the country in the process of fleeing from the country. His passport was not available. The modus operandi was to remain in the country by commission of a Crime. He placed reliance in the judgment of this Court in .... Petitioner v/s. State and others [Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1 of 2019], Peter @ Petr Shalaginov v/s. State of Goa and others [Cr. Writ Petition No.58 of 2020], Innocent Amaeme Maduabuchukwi v/s State and others,LD-VC-CRI-7- 2020 and that in Christian Chidieere Chukwu v/s. State of Karnataka [Cri.P.No.7904/2015] to substantiate his contention that the applicant was not entitled to the benefit of bail.