1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NOS.108 AND 109 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.108 OF 2011 Shri Govind Shepu Gaude, major, s/o Shepu Gaude, r/o Dhondshi, Nagugeshi, Bandora, Goa, through his next friend Shri Mangaldas D. Gaude, aged 36 years, service, r/o. Akar, Mardol, Ponda, Goa. .. Applicant Versus State through Police Inspector, CID, Dona Paula, Goa. .. Respondent Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate and Mr. Narendra Sawaikar and Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocates for the applicant. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate and Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for the respondent . AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.109 OF 2011 Shri Malu Thulo Velip, major, s/o Thulo Velip, r/o Padi, Quepem Goa through his next friend Shri Ganesh Govind Velip, aged 36 years, businessman, son of Govind Velip, r/o. H.No. 489, Rawapan, Barcem, Padi, Quepem, Goa. .. Applicant Versus State through Police Inspector, CID, Dona Paula, Goa. .. Respondent Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate and Mr. Narendra Sawaikar and Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocates for the applicant. 2 Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate and Mr. D. Lawande, Advocate for the respondent . Coram :- A. P. Lavande, J. Reserved on : - 12 th July, 2011. Pronounced on :- 14 th July, 2011. ORDER : Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 2. Both these applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are being disposed of by common order since both the applicants seek bail in FIR No.37/2011 registered at Cuncolim Police Station on 25th May, 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 435, 188, 332, 307 read with Sections 149 and 120-B of I.P.C and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 3. It is the case of the applicants that they being the members of UTAA have been falsely implicated in an incident which occurred at Balli, Quepem on 25th May, 2011. On that date, they were holding peaceful agitation in respect 3 of their demands. The agitators were informed that their major demands were met by the Minister for Tribal Affairs, Government of Goa and without any cause the police resorted to lathi charge on account of which there was commotion and thereafter some miscreants pelted stones on the police officials, Government vehicles and private cars and blocked the road. According to the applicants, they have been falsely implicated in the offences registered in FIR No.37/2011. 4. It is the case of the respondent that the applicants are the active members of UTAA and have not only participated in the commission of the offences but incited the crowd of over 2000 people present at the spot to resort to stone throwing, blockade of the highway and in the process caused injuries to about 40 persons including the police officials and damaged the Government and private vehicles as well as set fire to some of the vehicles. According to the respondent, the police had to resort to lathi charge since the agitators turned violent and refused to disperse. 5. Both the applicants filed bail applications before the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao and the bail applications having been dismissed, have approached this 4 Court seeking bail. 6. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submitted that both the applicants were called to Police Station on 3rd June, 2011 and they attended the Police Station and thereafter, they were called on 11th June, 2011 to the Police Station and were arrested. According to the learned Counsel, the applicants have been falsely implicated and the very fact that they were not arrested on 3rd June, 2011 clearly establishes that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Learned Counsel further submitted that even if the case of the respondent is accepted, the offences under Sections 307, 120-B and 149 of I.P.C. are not made out against the applicants. Learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution had sufficient time to investigate the offences and further detention of the applicants is not warranted. Learned Counsel further submitted that the other two accused namely Ashok Gaonkar and Dinesh Velip have been granted bail and, therefore, on the ground of parity also the applicants are entitled to bail. 7. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that having regard to the nature of the offences and the manner in which they were 5 committed, the applicants are not entitled to bail since the investigation is at initial stage. According to Mr. Nadkarni, the two accused namely Ashok Gaonkar and Dinesh Velip have been released on bail since their names were not figuring in the F.I.R. whereas the names of the applicants figure in the F.I.R. and there is sufficient prima facie evidence against them in respect of the various offences mentioned in F.I.R. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the offences under Sections 307, 120-B and 149 of I.P.C. are clearly made out against the applicants. 8. Mr. Nadkarni further submitted that the fact that the applicants were not arrested on 3rd June, 2011 when they were called to the Police Station by itself would not be a ground to release them on bail at this stage. Mr. Nadkarni submitted that having regard to the fact that the applicants along with the others under the garb of agitation led the violent attack on the Government machinery and thereafter attacked the Government staff and police and set on fire the official vehicles causing loss of the property worth Crores of rupees, the applicants are not entitled to bail at this stage. Mr. Nadkarni further submitted that there is every likelihood of tampering of the evidence by the applicants and, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to be released on 6 bail. 9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants and the respondent and having perused the record and having regard to the investigation carried out so far, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out by the applicants for grant of bail at this stage. No doubt, the applicants were called on 3rd June, 2011 to the Police Station and they were again called on 11th June, 2011 and arrested. But this fact by itself is not sufficient to grant bail to the applicants having regard to the nature of the offences committed and the manner in which they are committed. There is prima facie evidence on record that the several persons including the Government officials were injured on account of stone throwing by the agitators in which the applicants were present resulting in simple and grievous injuries to these persons. There is prima facie evidence to establish that several vehicles were burnt causing substantial loss. At this stage, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Lotlikar that the offences under Section 120-B, 149 and/ or 307 of I.P.C. are not made out against the applicants. The investigation is at initial stage and the apprehension of the Investigating Agency that the applicants may tamper with the evidence, cannot be lightly brushed aside. In so far as the 7 release of the two accused namely Ashok Gaonkar and Dinesh Velip involved in the same crime is concerned, the fact remains that their names do not appear in the F.I.R. whereas the names of the applicants figure in the F.I.R. and therefore, the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. Considering that the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicants are serious in nature and the manner in which the offences were committed, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants do not deserve to be released on bail at this stage. Therefore, the applications for bail filed by the applicants deserve to be dismissed. 10. In view of the above both the applications are dismissed. 11. Needless to mention that in the event the applicants choose to file fresh bail applications before the learned Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, the applications shall be dealt with on their own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA 8