IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 24 OF 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT MALVANKAR PRESENTLY IN POLICE CUSTODY ... Applicant Versus STATE THROUGH P.P. AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 9th February, 2010 P.C. This is an application for bail filed by the Applicant who has been arrested in crime No. 100/2009 registered at the Anjuna Police Station under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.11.2009 at about 14.30 hours one Laximan Salgaonkar has lodged a FIR stating that on 18.11.2009 between 12.30 hours to 12.45 hours an incident has occurred at D'Mello Vaddo, at Anjuna, wherein the Applicant had caught hold of one Sagar Salgaonkar i.e. brother of the informant and thereafter his son Sampret Malvankar stabbed him with knife due to which the victim sustained bleeding injury and succumbed to the injury while in the hospital. 3. The said Sampret Malvankar i.e. the son of the Applicant is already under arrest and is presently in judicial custody. 4. I have perused the record of the case i.e. the statements recorded of the eye witnesses by the police. The statement of one Trevor Mascarenhas who was at the scene of offence is to the effect that the Applicant was present at the scene of offence and he tried to separate his son and the said Sagar Salgaonkar i.e. the victim. Thereafter, the next eye witness is Krishna Bhonsle who has stated that the Applicant had tried to separate the parties who were involved in the altercations i.e. namely Sagar Salgaonkar and Sampret Malvankar and the words spoken by the Applicant in Konkani are to the effect that " don't assault him". The next two eye witnesses only state the presence of the Applicant at the scene of offence. Therefore, taking into consideration the statements made by Trevor and Krishna, the only act attributed to the Applicant is that he was trying to separate the parties and had caught the victim from the back. 5. The statements also disclose that there was previous enmity between the parties on account of which the victim had gone to the place where the said Sampret Malvankar was supposed to be and pelted stones at him, Sampret tried to protect himself by using a plastic chair as a shield. 6. Though various contentions are sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that taking into consideration the nature of the injury which is a solitary wound on the back side i.e. buttock and taking into consideration the act alleged, the same would at the highest amount to an offence under Section 304 or 326 of I.P.C., in my view, the same need not be gone into at this stage. Suffice it to say that the only overt act attributed to the Applicant is of holding the victim from the back. Prima facie the Applicant does not appear to be involved in any sort of conspiracy with the alleged assailant Sampret for the offences alleged. The learned Public Prosecutor states that the investigation is also complete. In my view, therefore, the Applicant would be entitled to be released on bail on the following terms and conditions : (i) The Applicant is released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Court. (ii) The Applicant would not influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (iii) The Applicant to report to the Anjuna Police Station on every alternate day at 4.30 p.m. till beginning of the Trial. (iv) Thereafter, the Applicant to remain present at the hearing of the said case on day-to-day basis and on the day when he is not in a position to remain present, he would seek prior exemption which would be considered by the Sessions Court on its own merits. In the event, the Applicant does not abide by any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail would automatically stand cancelled and the Applicant would thereafter be liable to be taken into custody. The bail application is accordingly disposed of. 7. In passing this order, I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the Trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations, if any, made in this order. 8. The parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. R. M. SAVANT, J. at*