1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 104 OF 2009 Shri Satyawan K. Dessai, Aged 33 years, Businessman, H.No. 114, Gaowado Xelvon, Curchorem, Goa. .... Applicant V/s 1. S T A T E Through the Public Prosecutor. 2. Police Inspector, CID/CBI Panaji. .... Respondents Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 2 nd APRIL, 2009. ORDER : The applicant herein again seeks his release on bail, after his application came to be rejected by order of this Court dated 15/07/2008. Presently, the bail is sought on two grounds, namely, on the ground of parity, with a submission that A7/Sarvesh P. Timblo has been released on bail by order dated 30/08/2008 of this Court in Criminal Application (bail) No. 226/2008 and, on the ground that the trial against the applicant is being delayed on account of order dated 19/03/2009 in Criminal Revision Application No. 17/2009. 2 2. The applicant herein is A6 in Crime No. 12/2006 of Curchorem Police Station and has been in detention from 19/10/2007, after his application for anticipatory bail was rejected. The trial against the accused had already started upon the provisional charge sheet filed against him and others. The application for bail filed earlier by him was rejected by order dated 15/07/2008, after certain observations were made. It was observed, inter alia, that the fact that A6/Satyawan Dessai was rewarded with a lease for which payment was made by accused no.1 Rajesh Dessai, showed that he too was part of the conspiracy. All these pieces of evidence are also linked with the statements of co-accused and which collectively show that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they have been guilty of offences which are serious in nature and for which punishment provided is severe. It was also observed that if the accused could hush up the investigation as is evident from the transfer of the case from the Police Inspector of Curchorem Police Station to Crime Branch, CID, Panaji, the tampering of evidence, in case they are released on bail, is very eminent. On this count also, it was held that they would not be entitled to bail. 3. A copy of the said order with certain other observations was sent to the Director General of Police, Panaji, but, it has not brought about the desired effects. Additional charge sheet was filed against the said Sarvesh 3 Pramod Timblo as accused no.7 in the said Sessions case which is now pending for trial under Sections 450 and 307 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. An application for anticipatory bail filed by the said Sarvesh Pramod Timblo/A7 was not objected to before this Court on 30/08/2008 and only a formal arrest of Sarvesh Pramod Timblo/A7 appears to have been made. The said Sarvesh Pramod Timblo/A7 against whom charge also is directed to be framed has challenged the said order before this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 17/2009 and by order dated 19/03/2009 further proceedings in the said Sessions case has been stayed. Needless to observe, the disposal of the said Criminal Revision Application No. 17/2009 is bound to take sometime. 4. From the order dated 15/07/2008, it appears that the ground of parity urged earlier in relation to some other accused, referring to the case of Kunal Ramdas Chavan V/s. State of Maharashtra (2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1403) was reflected. In my view, the ground of parity in relation to accused Sarvesh P. Timblo/A7 would not be available to the present applicant/A6 because the role played by the present applicant/A6 is certainly more active and more serious in that the allegation against him is that he carried on his motorcycle the person to shoot the victim. 5. Counsel on behalf of the applicant/A6, has placed reliance, as regards 4 delay in the trial, on the cases of State, CBI/SPE, New Delhi V/s Pal Singh & Anr. (2001 All MR (Cri) 751) as well as Vivek Kumar V/s. State of U.P. (2000 ALL MR CRI 1238) and Sanjay @ Bablu @ Keja V/s. State of Gujarat (2002 ALL MR (Cri) 468 (S.C.)) but as rightly submitted by Shri Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor, the said cases are quite distinguishable. In this case, the trial has already began and 7 or 8 witnesses have been already examined. The disposal of the revision petition and/or subsequent cross-examination of the witnesses examined in case the revision petition does not succeed is bound to take some time but certainly not long time to enable the present applicant/A6 to get an order of bail in his favour. 6. In the case of State V/s. Pal Singh (supra) there was a delay of 4 years in recovery of weapons in a murder case and, therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that the accused could not be detained as an under trial endlessly proceeded to bail him out. The Supreme Court also noted that the case had remained where it was 4 years ago and the respondents were not responsible for the said torpid situation and from the remaining accused, two were not arrested even till that date. 7. In the case of Sanjay @ Bablu @ Keja V/s. State of Gujarat (supra) the accused was in jail for over 2 years in connection with the offences under Sections 307, 393, 392 r/w 120B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and the 5 only objection taken was that he was likely to abscond from the Court in Gujarat as he hailed from Allahabad and in the circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court admitted the accused to bail. 8. In the case of Vivek Kumar V/s. State of U.P. (supra), the accused had remained in jail for over 2 years without trial being commenced and the Hon'ble Supreme Court felt that the accused who was locked up under Section 307,395 r/w 149 ought not to remain further in custody. 9. Considering that in this case trial has made much progress and for the only reason that it is suspended for the present in view of the said order dated 19/03/2009, the accused would not be entitled to bail. Hence, his application is rejected. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-