MOHAN FAL DESSAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.3 in all the applications. By these applications under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to accused/ respondent no.3 by order dated 11th August, 2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao in Bail Application Nos.176/2011, 177/2011 and 178/2011.

(2.) ON 25th May, 2011, at about 3.45 hours, the officer in -charge of Cuncolim Police Station lodged F.I.R. to the effect that at Balli Junction at Quepem about 2000 agitators had committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 435, 188, 332 and 307 read with Sections 149 and 120B of I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The same was registered vide Crime No.37/2011. It is the case of the prosecution that the mob assaulted the police personnel and caused damage to the property including Government vehicles. The names of the respondent no.3 in all the applications appear in the F.I.R. Some of the accused were arrested during investigation. It is further the case of the prosecution before this Court that on 5th August, 2011 respondent no.3 in all the three applications came near the office of Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Dona Paula and demanded arrest of all the UTAA members. Thereafter, respondent no.3 in all the three applications surrendered before the Crime Branch and they were arrested. It appears that all the three of them were taken to Goa Medical College for medical examination and were admitted in the hospital where they remained for some time. Thereafter, they were remanded to judicial custody. In the applications for bail filed by them, replies were filed on behalf of respondent no.2 giving no objection for release on the ground that they were not required in custody for investigation. Pursuant to the no objection given by the prosecution, the learned Principal Sessions Judge granted bail upon terms and conditions mentioned in the three orders dated 11th August, 2011 passed in the three bail applications.

(3.) MR . De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has given no objection for bail on account of pressure exerted by UTAA leaders and politicians and as such, the orders granting bail to respondent no.3 in all the applications deserve to be set aside. Learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution did not choose to arrest the three accused for a considerable length of time and it is only after they along with other UTAA members demanded arrest of all the UTAA members, the prosecution chose to arrest the three accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that in spite of sufficient material being available against the three accused, the learned Principal Sessions Judge on the basis of no objection given by the prosecution has granted bail without considering whether their further detention in judicial custody is warranted or not. According to learned Counsel, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have acted on the no objection given by the prosecution and granted bail to the three accused without considering as to whether they were entitled to be released on bail having regard to the materials against them. According to the learned Counsel, the replies filed on behalf of the prosecution before the Sessions Court itself suggest that the three accused were actively involved in the commission of various offences on 25th May, 2011. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has locus to file the applications since he had suffered on account of commission of offences on 25th May, 2011 and as such, entitled to seek cancellation of bail of the three accused. Learned Counsel further submitted that in any case, this Court is entitled to pass order cancelling the bail suo motu under Section 439(2) of Cr. P. Code as held by the Apex Court in the case of R. Rathinam Vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai and another; : (2000)2 SCC 391. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the bail granted to respondent no.3 in all the three applications deserves to be cancelled.