1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Criminal Miscellaneous application (Bail) No.18 of 2011 and Criminal Miscellaneous application (Bail) No.19 of 2011 Criminal Miscellaneous application (Bail) No.18 of 2011 Vinal Vishvanath Diukar, son of late Mr. Vishvanath Divkar, age, 21 years, R/O,94, Fondem, Calangute, Bardez, Goa. … Applicant V e r s u s 1. State (through office -in-charge of Calangute Police Station) 2. The Investigation Officer/Officer in-charge Agassaim Police Station 3. Public Prosecutor, Panaji-Goa …. Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous application (Bail) No.19 of 2011 Mr. Rohit Diukar, son of Mr. Prabhakar Divkar, age, 23 years, 2 R/O, 94, Fondem, Calangute, Bardez, Goa. …. Applicant. V e r s u s 1. State (through office -in-charge of Calangute Police Station) 2. The Investigation Officer/Officer in-charge Agassaim Police Station 3. Public Prosecutor, Panaji-Goa …. Respondents Ms. C. Colasso, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/ State. Reserved on:28/1/2011. Pronounced on:31/1/2011. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 31/1/2011. ORDER: Both these applications are being disposed of by a common order since both the applicants who are accused in Crime no.241/2010 registered at Calangute Police Station seek anticipatory bail. 3 2. Pursuant to the First information Report lodged by Mrs. Melena Gomes Pinto initially offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC was registered. Thereafter, in the course of the investigation, Sections 143,147,148 r/w 149 IPC have been added. 3. Apprehending arrest in connection with crime no.241/2010, the applicants filed anticipatory bail applications before the Sessions Judge, North Goa Panaji which are opposed by the respondents herein. By order dated 17/1/2011, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the applications. The applicants have approached this Court with similar relief. 4. Ms. Collasso, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the alleged incident on account of which F.I.R has been registered against the applicants and three others arises out of a property dispute and the record 4 discloses that the applicants were the caretakers of the said property. According to the learned counsel having regard to the nature of the incident and the injury suffered by the victim Alex Pinto, offence under Section 307 of IPC is clearly not made out and the material on record does not disclose that the applicants and other accused attempted to commit murder of Alex Pinto. Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution has not made out any case for custodial interrogation. She further submitted that the other two accused namely Prabhakar Divkar and Surendra Divkar have been granted bail by this Court by order dated 3/1/2011 and,as such, the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the latest unreported judgment dated 2/12/2010 of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Criminal Appeal no.2271 2010. According to the learned counsel having regard to the parameters laid down in the said 5 judgment while granting anticipatory bail, the applicants are entitled to relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, Mr. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications and submitted that having regard to the nature of the assault and the fact that Mr. Alex Pinto was assaulted by five persons, prima facie offences under Sections 143,147,148 and 307 r/w 149 IPC are made out against the applicants. He further submitted that having regard to the fact that the applicants have been absconding from the date of commission of the offences and having regard to the nature of the allegations against the applicants, this is not a fit case in which the applicants deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. He further submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and 6 perused the case diary and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Mhetre (supra). 7. Having regard to the material on record at this stage it cannot be said that offence under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC is not made out against the applicants. The material on record prima facie discloses the complicity of the applicants in commission of the offences alleged against them. No doubt, two of the accused namely Prabhakar Divkar and Surendra Divkar have been granted bail by this Court by order dated 3/1/2011. But this fact by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail. It is well settled that the considerations for grant of bail and anticipatory bail are different. Moreover, the record also prima facie discloses that the applicants have been absconding since the date of commission of the offence and therefore the applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail. Having regard to the 7 parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Mhetre (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail sought by them. 8. In my opinion, the contention of the prosecution that custodial interrogation is warranted cannot be said to be without any basis. 9. I have not referred to the material on record so that no prejudice is caused to the applicants. 10. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with crime no.241/2010 registered at Calangute Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143,147, 148 and 307 r/w 149 IPC. Needless to mention that the observations 8 made above are only prima facie in nature and have been made for the limited purpose of disposal of the applications. 11. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-