PRASHANT KONADKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri M. Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Respondent.

(2.) The above application for bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. is filed to release the Applicant on bail during the pendency of the trial which is going on before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, at Mapusa. It is the contention of the Applicant that he is 38 years old, married and a permanent resident of Pernem, Goa, at the address as reflected in the cause title of the application. It is further his contention that besides his wife, he has two minor children and that he is a law abiding citizen. A chargesheet was filed by the Respondents against different accused including the Applicant for offences punishable under Section 302, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, charges were directed to be framed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by Order dated 16.06.2011. The Applicant was taken in custody on 29.09.2010 in connection with the said crime and he is in judicial custody during the pendency of the trial before the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) SHRI Teles, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, has pointed out that as per the case of the prosecution, the Applicant is part of the conspiracy which led to the murder of the victim. Learned Counsel has pointed out that in the chargesheet as well as the statements produced by the Respondents, there are only three circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to implicate the Applicant in the crime which is under trial before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. Learned Counsel has further pointed out the circumstances which curl out from the chargesheet and the statements and material produced by the prosecution are namely :