1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.222 OF 2010 MR. SURENDRA SINGH, PRESENTLY LODGED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY AT SADA JAIL, VASCO. …. Applicant V/S STATE THROUGH P.I. ATTACHED TO OLD GOA POLICE STATION. …. Respondent Mr. Menino Teles, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2010 ORDER : Heard. 2. The applicant seeks bail, after the same has been denied to him, by order dated 8/09/2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa. 3. The applicant was arrested on 17/06/2009 in connection with Crime No.51/2009 under Sections 452, 395, 397 and Section 3 r/w Section 25 of the Arms Act and since then has been in custody. Charge has already been framed against the applicant and the trial 2 which was initially delayed, has now been fixed on 25th instant. There is no dispute as regards the complicity of the applicant as he has been sufficiently identified by inmates of the house. 4. Shri Teles, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant, relying on the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja V/s. State of Gujarat (1984 Cr.L.J. 160) submits that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. Next , learned Counsel submits that the main witnesses are the family members and there is therefore no question of the applicant, if released on bail, interfering with them. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ibrahim alias Munna Salim Shaikh V/s. State of Maharashtra (1996 Cri.L.J. 1419) and that of the Apex Court in the case of Vivek Kumar V/s. State of U.P. (2000 Cri.L.J. 2774) and submitted that the delay which has taken place would entitle the applicant to release on bail. In the first case, the accused was in jail for about nine years and in the second case a little less than two years. Learned Counsel then submits that the applicant is a young offender and if he remains in the company of hard-core criminals in jail, his entire life may be spoiled and in this context Shri Teles has placed reliance on the case of Brijesh Kumar V/s. The State 3 (2002 Cri.L.J. 3873). Reliance has also been placed on the case of Menino Lopes V/s. State of Goa (II 1995 CCR 795) and it is submitted that the applicant ought to be granted bail unless the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable likely hood of the accused fleeing from justice or absconding or polluting the same, whether by abscondence, by tampering of evidence or otherwise. Reliance is also placed on Jeet Ram and etc. V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 Cri.L.J. 736) wherein it is observed that mere gravity of offence and severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail. 5. Shri Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has submitted that the age of the applicant cannot be a fact or to release him on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the case of Vivek Kumar (supra) is not at all attracted to the facts of this case because the trial has now been fixed on 25th instant which was otherwise delayed because of want of availability of a Judge of the Court where the case of the applicant was pending. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant has no permanent address and the investigating agency has not been able to contact the father of the applicant at the address given on behalf of the applicant. 4 6. The applicant had given a vague address in the cause title of the application and the applicant had described himself as the son of Ranabur Singh. Then the applicant on 15/10/2010 gave another address as son of Raguvir Singh, resident of H.No.125, Joya road, Village: Bamboogadh, Pandaki, Amroha, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar (J.P. Nagar) in Uttar Pradesh. It is the contention of the respondent that the father of the applicant could not be contacted at the said address. It appears that the applicant herein has no fixed place of residence and chances are that in case the applicant is released on bail he is likely to flee from justice, and thus make himself unavailable for trial. As he has no permanent anywhere in the country. There is no doubt that the charge against the applicant is serious in that one of the offences is punishable with punishment which could extend to life and the other with minimum punishment of seven years. Although the applicant has been in jail for over a year, the delay is not such as would entitle him to be admitted to bail, more so, because the trial has now been fixed on 25th instant and I have no doubt in my mind that the learned trial Court will expedite the said trial as expeditiously as possible. 7. In view of the above, I find this is not a fit case to admit the 5 applicant to bail at this stage. 8. Application, therefore, is dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-