1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Criminal Application (Bail) No.220 of 2009. Mr. Shawn alias Shane Lobo, son of Terry John Lobo, aged 49 years, r/o. House No.56-A, Kamarkhazan, Akoi, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa, Presently in Judicial Custody at Panaji, Through his best friend, Mr. Trojan D'Mello, aged 58 years, R/o. House no.354, Guirim, Bardez, Goa. .. Applicant V/s. STATE Represented by Officer-in-charge, Women's Police Station, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondent Mr. Amit Palekar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. C.A.Ferriera, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: N.A. BRITTO, J Date: 27 th July, 2009 2 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard. The applicant herein is accused in crime No.3/06 under sections 342, 366-A I.P.C, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Sections 8 and 9 of the Children's Act, 2003. 2. The applicant was arrested on 18.6.2009 in connection with the investigations of the said case and by order dated 29.6.2009 the applicant was denied bail and as such the applicant has approached this court for bail. 3. The alleged offences were committed on 20.11.2006. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant on his own on 31.3.2009 had met the investigating officer near Asilo hospital, Mapusa, but was not arrested. Learned Counsel further submits that at present the applicant is in judicial custody and if from 31.3.2009 the applicant has not interfered in the investigations of 3 the case in any manner, the respondent's apprehension that there is every possibility that in case he is released on bail will tamper with evidence is without any basis and therefore the applicant ought to be granted bail. 4. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the case of Anthony Britto V/s. State of Goa (2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1950) and has submitted that the present case is similar to the said case of the said Anthony Britto who was admitted to bail. Shri C.A.Ferreira, the Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the applicant is involved in serious offences and therefore would not be entitled to bail. However, the Learned Public Prosecutor concedes that the offences either under I.P.C or Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 are punishable with imprisonment for not more than ten years. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay V/s. Sudarshan Singh & Ors. (2002 (3) SCC 598, wherein the 4 Apex Court has observed that:- Grant of bail though being a discretionary order  but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and facts however do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic consideration for the grant of bail  more heinous is a crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter . 5. The Learned trial court has declined to grant bail observing that the investigations were at the preliminary stage and in case the applicant was released on bail, there was every possibility that he 5 will try to tamper with the witnesses and even may try to influence the victim girl. 6. The Counsel on behalf of the applicant has submitted that he has been informed that the victim girl has already married. Be that as it may, the crime itself was committed or for that matter registered on 20.11.2006 and the applicant was not even arrested on 31.3.2009. Learned Public Prosecutor may be right in submitting that it is always the discretion of the investigating officer whether to arrest or not an accused in a particular case. Considering that the applicant has been at large from 2006 till he was arrested on 19.6.2009 and since there is no other allegation that during the said period the applicant had made any effort to interfere with the investigation, the apprehension that there is possibility that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will tamper evidence appears to be more imaginary than real. 6 7. Bail and not jail is the rule. Allegations against the applicant are serious, but not so serious as to deny bail to him, considering that by now the investigations might have been completed. Ld. Public Prosecutor has pointed out to no principle on the basis of which bail could be denied to the applicant considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the application is granted. The applicant shall be released on bail upon execution of a bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Learned Children's Court, Panaji. Authenticated copy be given. N.A. BRITTO oc.