IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 243 OF 2011 SHRI. PREMKUMAR PANDEY, PRESENTLY IN CUSTODY AT SADA SUB -JAIL, THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND/FATHER, ... Applicant Versus THE STATE OF GOA, THROUGH THE POLICE INSPECTOR, AGASSAIM POLICE STATION., ... Respondent Shri Ryan Da Piedade Menezes, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 23rd December, 2011 P.C.: Heard Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri C.A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to direct that the applicant be released on bail in a case registered vide Crime No.82/2011 by the Agassaim Police Station. 3. It is the contention of the applicant that he was arrested on 18/11/2011 by Agassaim Police Station claiming to be involved in an alleged offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8(2) of the Goa Childrens Act. It is further his contention that he is not involved in any such offence and that he has been falsely implicated by the respondent. The petitioner has further pointed out that he had filed an application for bail before the Children's Court being Bail Application No.92/2011 which came to be rejected. The petitioner further points out that he will abide with any of the conditions imposed by this Court and that he will be available at the time of the trial in the event the charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court. The petitioner further points out that his family is also staying in Goa. 4. The respondent filed reply opposing the said application. The main opposition raised by the respondent was that the petitioner may not be available at the time of the trial of the case before the Children's Court. The respondent further pointed out that the applicant is involved in a serious offence and, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 5. Shri R. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has argued on behalf of the applicant and pointed out that there is no reason to keep the applicant in custody, as according to him, the applicant is innocent and not involved in any crime. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner shall abide with all the conditions imposed by the Court and that he would make himself available at the time of trial of the case, if any. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has been involved for the first time in the criminal case and, as such, he is entitled for bail. 6. On the other hand, Shri C.A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the request of the applicant and stated that the applicant is involved in serious offence and, as such, he is not entitled for bail. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the applicant is originally from Uttar Pradesh and there is every apprehension that the applicant may jump bail and will not be available for the trial of the criminal case. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel on the last date of hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant was called upon to furnish the address where he would reside in case the bail is granted. Accordingly, an address was furnished being H.No.276, next to Post Office Agacaim, Baixo de Ingrej, Agacaim, Tiswadi, Goa, belonging to Shalini Pai, widow of late Keshv Pai. Accordingly, the respondent was called upon to verify the correctness of the said address. A report dated 22/12/2011 is filed by the Police Inspector of Agassaim Police station stating inter alia that the applicant is residing at the said given address for the last two months and that he had also contacted the said Mrs. Shalini Pai who had shown her willingness to keep the applicant in the rented room therein. 8. It is not in dispute that for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the maximum sentence of imprisonment is two years and with regard to the offence punishable under Section 8(2) for sexual assault under Children's Act the maximum period of imprisonment is three years. As such, it cannot be accepted that the applicant is involved in a serious offence as sought to be contended by the learned Public Prosecutor to refuse bail to the applicant. The learned Children's Court has essentially refused the bail on the ground that the applicant may not be available at the time of the trial of the criminal proceedings, but however, taking note of the fact that his address has been verified by the respondent, I find that the said ground does not survive at this stage. It is also pointed out that in the reply filed by the respondent that the investigation is already completed and the respondent is in the process of filing the charge sheet. Another aspect which can also be noted is that the applicant is involved for the first time in the criminal offence. Taking all this factors into consideration, I find that the applicant is entitled for bail subject to conditions. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- to the satisfaction of the Jailer and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Goa or change the aforesaid residential address without obtaining permission from the Children's Court at Panaji. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or intermediate or interfere with the witnesses of the respondent in connection with the above case. (iv) The petitioner shall remain present as and when the proceedings are initiated before the Children's Court. (v) The above applications stands accordingly disposed of. (vi) Parties to act on the authenticated copy. F. M. REIS, J. NH