IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 118 OF 2011 MR. JITENDRA PRABHU DESAI ... Applicant Versus STATE, (THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR, SANGUEM POLICE STATION, GOA ... Respondent Mr. A. D Bhobe, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the respondent. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 28th July, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. after his application is rejected by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao by order dated 13th July, 2011 passed in Anticipatory Bail Application No.153/2011. 3. Against the applicant and another accused on 27th June, 2011, F.I.R. has been lodged by Swapnil Dessai under Section 447, 324, 379, 506(ii) and 504 read with Section 34 of I.P.C alleging that on 25th June, 2011, at about 4 p.m., the applicant and his father Dattatray trespassed into the property bearing No.96/1 and assaulted the informant with sickle and stone thereby causing injuries and also assaulted his father Vidyadhar with teeth bite and during the scuffle, they committed theft of wallet containing MDL, 5 ATM Cards of Bank, Advocate's Sanad, cash of Rs.400/- and insulted them with filthy language and also gave them bad words and threatened them with dire consequences. 4. The application has been opposed by the respondent mainly on the ground that there is sufficient material on record including C.D. which clearly discloses the commission of theft by the applicant and on the ground that the weapons used and articles stolen in respect of which theft is committed, are to be recovered in the course of investigation. The application has been also opposed on the ground that the applicant has been absconding for a considerable length of time. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the case papers and considering the nature of the material available and the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case in which the applicant deserves relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Investigating papers do not prima facie disclose abscondance as alleged by the respondent. In so far as the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. is concerned, the medical report prima facie does not support the case of the informant that the applicant had given tooth bite in as much as the certificate issued by the Doctor does not corroborate this fact. Considering these facts and considering the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant, I am of the opinion that the investigation can be carried out by the Investigating Officer without resorting to custodial interrogation. Merely because the respondent claims that for recovery of articles alleged to have been stolen and weapons used in the commission of offence the custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary, the same by itself is not the ground to refuse anticipatory bail to the applicant. The interest of the Investigating Agency can be well protected by imposing appropriate conditions. 6. In view of the above, the application is allowed on the following terms and conditions : (i) In the event of arrest of the applicant for Crime No.13/2011 under Sections 447, 324, 379, 506(ii), 504 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. registered at Sanguem Police Station, the applicant shall be released upon executing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Investigating Officer for a period of 7 days from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. commencing from 29th July, 2011. (iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The applicant shall not leave the State of Goa without prior permission of Investigating Officer till the chargesheet is filed. (v) The applicant shall furnish his address in writing to the respondent and shall make himself available for investigation as and when required. 7. During the course of hearing of the bail application, I have perused the case diary in the present case. It is observed that the case papers have been paginated by pencil. In terms of Subsection (1)(B) of Section 172 of Cr.P.C. which has been inserted by amendment with effect from 31st December, 2009, the case diary has to be a volume and duly paginated. The importance of case diary in a criminal trial need not be overemphasized. It is, therefore, expected of the Investigating Officers to duly paginate the case diary not in pencil, but in ink for obvious reasons. 8. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct that a copy of this order be forthwith sent to Director General of Police, State of Goa who shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the provision of Section 172(1)(B) of Cr.P.C. is complied with by all the concerned Police Officers. 9. With these observations the application stands disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA