IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( MAIN ) NO. 21 OF 2010 STATE OF GOA (COLVA POLICE STATION) ... Applicant Versus MR. CALVERT GONSALVES AND ANR., ... Respondents Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the State/Applicant. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 3rd February, 2010 P.C. The above application has been filed by the State for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondents herein by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide Order dated 05.01.2010. The cancellation of anticipatory bail is sought, inter alia, on the grounds mentioned in the application and principally on the ground that the custody of the Applicants is required for further investigation into the matter. 2. The Respondents had filed an application for anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest under Crime no.166/09 under Sections 153, 153-A, 295-A and 298 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The said F.I.R. has been registered at the behest of one Jason Andrade, Parish Pastoral Council. The allegations against the Applicant no.1 is that the said Applicant has produced the CD with the caption "Dogui Bodmas". The said CD alludes to one Parish Priest Fr. Diogo Fernandes, Vicar, General and Bishop of Goa Archdioceses. Certain blasphemous remarks and statements have been made against the Parish Priest, on account of which, there is confusion and tension in the Catholic community of Colva in particular and in Goa in general which, according to the FIR, has the effect of creating disharmony and wounding religious feelings and insulting the religious beliefs of the people of Colva and hence the offence under the aforesaid Sections has been registered. 3. The said application for anticipatory bail was opposed by the I.O., inter alia, on the ground that statements of some more witnesses were required to be recorded as also on the ground that there is possibility of the Applicants interfering and pressurizing the witnesses and the custodial interrogation of the Applicants was essential to gather evidence on account of his accomplices which were involved in making of the said CD "Dogui Bodmas". 4. The said application for anticipatory bail was considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the touchstone of the offences with which the Applicants have been charged. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded a prima facie finding that the case of the Complainant or the statement of witnesses on the face of it does not demonstrate the involvement of two Communities or religious groups and has therefore doubted the applicability of Section 153-A and 295-A of the I.P.C. In so far as Sections 295-A and 505 of I.P.C. are concerned, they both overlap as they have a common feature of promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religions or racial or language or regional groups or castes and communities. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also taken into consideration the fact that the Applicant, who is the Respondent no.1 herein i.e. Calvert Gonsalves, has admitted the releasing of the CD and the fact that the said Applicant had himself placed a copy of the CD and taking into consideration the defence of the Applicant, that there is nothing in the songs which is likely to cause enmity between various Sections of the people. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the CD would have to be considered as a whole and in a broader perspective and not merely from a few solitary lines from the lyrics. 5. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge also took into consideration that there was nothing on record to indicate that the Applicants, who are the Respondents herein, or the other Accused had, at any point of time, interfered with the witnesses in any manner. Hence, taking into consideration the relevant factors namely, the offences alleged against the Applicants, the gravity of the offence and the nature of evidence that was available and the likelihood of the Applicants fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution evidence, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was of the view that the case for grant of anticipatory bail was made out and the apprehension of the Applicants that they would be arrested in the said Crime no. 166 of 2009, was well founded. 6. The said anticipatory bail has been granted as indicated above by the Order dated 05.01.2010. It is not the case of the State that the liberty which has been granted to the Applicant has been misused in any manner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents states that in terms of the said Order dated 05.01.2010, the Respondents were attending the concerned Police Station at the hours mentioned in the said Order. The learned Senior Counsel further states that the Respondents are ready to co-operate with the Police if so required. 7. In the light of the above, no case for cancellation of anticipatory bail is made out. The application is accordingly rejected. R. M. SAVANT, J. arp/*