Mr. Premanand Shankar Dodamani vs State of Goa and Police Inspector, Vasco da Gama Police Station, Vasco da Gama.

F. M. Reis, JJ.—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 Akhalaq Ahmed F. Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra, .

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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records as well as the authorities cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, I find that the Applicant has made out a case to be released in the event of his arrest. There is no material pointed out to show the involvement of the Applicant in the alleged offences. Taking note of the alleged role of the Applicant, I find that there is no reason to refuse bail to the Applicant. The Respondents have not made any grievance to the effect that the Applicant has not been co-operating with the investigations. There is no apprehension pointed out by the Respondents that the Applicant may abscond and/or not be available for the investigation. At this stage, considering the material on record, I find that the Applicant is entitled to bail in the event of his arrest.

The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , has held at Paras 112, 113 and 116 thus :

The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

(iv) The possibility of the accused''s likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.

114.

116. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Considering the said Judgment of the Apex Court, I find that taking note of the material on record, there is no reason not to grant bail to the Applicant in the event of his arrest in connection with the said offence. The alleged role of the Applicant, prima facie, is not very clear and, as such, there is no reason for any custodial interrogation of the Applicant at this stage. In view of the above, I find that the Applicant is entitled for bail in the event of his arrest subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated herein below. In view of the above, I pass the following :

ORDER

(i) In the event of the arrest of the Applicant, the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-each with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

(ii) The Applicant shall report to the Vasco Police Station initially for a period of seven days from Monday i.e. 10.10.2011 between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and thereafter to report as per the requests of the Investigating Officer.

(iii) The Applicant shall not leave the State of Goa without permission of this Court until chargesheet is filed.

(iv)The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or in any way influence the prosecution witnesses.

(v) The Applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and produce all documents, books and records as directed by the Investigating Officer from time to time.

(vi) The above application stands disposed of accordingly.