IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 23 OF 2010 MR. SANTOSH NAIK, THROUGH NEXT FRIEND AND WIFE, MRS. SIYA NAIK ... Applicant Versus STATE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR., ... 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:- 9th July, 2010 P.C. Heard. 2. The applicant who is an accused and who is being charged before the Court of Session under section 307 and 353 of Indian Penal Code, seeks bail before this Court, after the same has been denied to him on four occasions by the learned Additional Session Judge, and, lastly by holding that filing of the chargesheet does not amount to change in circumstances. 3. Be that as it may, that filing of the chargesheet does amount to change of circumstances is a consistent view held by this Court. It appears that an offence was registered against the accused under crime no. 31/2010 under sections 341, 323, 504 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and the police party had gone in search of the accused when it is alleged that the accused assaulted PSI Prasanna Bhagat with a knife in an attempt to murder him as a result of which another crime no.32/10 under section 307 and 353 came to be registered against him and a case is pending before the learned Session Court, for framing of charge, in that regard. 4. It appears that there was another case filed against the applicant at Margao Town police registered under crime no. 209/2008 under section 353, 353, 324, 504 of Indian Penal Code for having assaulted traffic constable on duty near State Bank of India. Counsel on behalf of the accused informs that in the said case the accused has been acquitted by the judgment dated 31.8.2009 in criminal case no.338/S/2008/III which position the learned public prosecutor does not dispute. 5. Shri Ferreira, learned Public prosecutor submits that in case the applicant is released on bail then the applicant is likely to tamper with the evidence. The apprehension appears to be more imaginary then real considering that two of the witnesses who were present at the time of the incident are police personnel. The applicant after commission of the offence disappeared but surrendered to the police later on 8.3.2010. 6. Considering the facts of the case therefore, no useful purpose will be served by denying bail to the applicant/accused. Consequently the applicant shall be released on bail upon execution of bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Margao. 7. Authenticated copy of this order be furnished to the parties. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn