THOMAS FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/accused has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Margao, dated 3rd April 2003, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 19 of 2003, cancelling the bail of the applicant/accused.

(2.) THE facts as are necessary for the decision of this application may briefly be stated hereunder:- The applicant/accused is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In connection with the said offence, the applicant/accused was arrested on 2nd March 2003. He was ordered to be released on bail, on 12th March 2003, as per the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the condition that the applicant/accused would keep away from his village Majorda for the period of 30 days from the date of the Order. A condition was also imposed that he would establish his residence in the town of Margao and shall not directly or indirectly interfere with the witnesses. On 26th March 2003, an application was filed by the applicant/accused praying for modification of the condition and that he may be permitted to visit his village from 4th April 2003 onwards. On notice being issued to the respondent State on the application filed by the applicant/accused, a reply was filed by the State contending therein that the applicant/accused had breached the condition imposed on him while granting bail as within 10 days of his release he had visited his village Majorda. An apprehension was also expressed in the reply that there was a possibility of the applicant/accused threatening the witnesses. Meanwhile the first informant filed an application on 27th March 2003 seeking permission of the Sessions Judge for intervening in the application filed by the applicant/accused for modification of the condition. It appears that the first informant has also filed affidavits of Francis Coelho and Hendriqueta Sequeira. He had also filed his own affidavit and that of his wife. The accused in order to rebut the allegation that he had breached the condition of the bail had also produced two affidavits, one of his wife and the other of one Kanaga Raj, the owner of Pentagon Bar and Restaurant.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Dessai, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sardessai, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Lawande, learned counsel for respondent no. 3/the first informant.