PREMANAND SHANKAR DODAMANI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J. Godinho learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents. Shri Godinho, learned Counsel, has submitted that the Applicant is innocent and was not at all involved with any of the alleged activities complained by the Respondents in respect of the FIR lodged against the Applicant. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicant is a Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India and being a Government servant, he cannot be prosecuted for acts carried out in good faith in his official capacity. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicant is prepared to co -operate with the investigations and submit to any terms and conditions imposed on him. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in : 1998 (2) Mh. L. J. 932 in the case of Akhalaq Ahmed F. Patel vs. State of Maharashtra.

(2.) ON the other hand, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents has pointed out that no case is made out for any bail to the Applicant. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the Applicant is involved in a grave offence and, as such, the question of granting any bail in the event of his arrest would not arise. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that though the Applicant has presented himself for investigations, nevertheless, the Applicant is required for custodial interrogation. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the Applicant has committed offences under Section 304 of I.P.C. and, as such, considering that persons have died on account of the fire, the question of releasing the Applicant in the event of his arrest does not arise. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that this Court should not go into the aspects as to whether there is any material on record to substantiate the contentions of the Respondents that the Applicant has also committed offences punishable under Section 304 of the I.P.C. as any observations of this Court may hamper the investigations by the Respondents. The learned Public Prosecutor as such submitted that the above application deserves to be rejected.

(3.) THE Apex Court in the Judgment reported in : 2011(1) S.C.C. 694 in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, has held at Paras 112, 113 and 116 thus :