IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 246 OF 2009 AL SALEHA BEIG CURRENTLY IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY THROUGH NEXT FRIEND SULEIMAN BEIG ... Applicant Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR PANAJI POLICE STATION ... Respondent Shri S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Shri Ryan Menezes and Ms. G. Xettigar, Advocates for the Applicant. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 18th August, 2009 P.C.:- Heard. Perused the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent. The Applicant herein is an accused who was granted pardon and has already been examined before the trial Court. The Applicant sought his release on bail thereafter, and his bail application came to be rejected by Order of the learned trial Court dated 20-7-2009. The learned trial Court in rejecting the application of the Applicant observed that in case he was released at this stage there was possibility that he may tamper with other witnesses or there could be pressure on him to tamper with them or there could be pressure from other accused which would affect the object of granting pardon. The learned trial Court also observed that the decisions cited before him were in relation to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and, therefore they were of no assistance to the Applicant. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been in custody for a period of three years and the objections taken on behalf of the Respondent, in the affidavit-in-reply is that bail ought not be granted to him because of his own security, and he would otherwise be required to be identified by some of the other witnesses who are yet to be examined before the learned trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in case there were problems for the Applicant, while in jail, this is the best time for the Applicant to remain out of jail, and be free from trouble from the remaining accused. Shri Lotlikar has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court dated 10-1-1007 in the case of Shri Pratham Gadhagkar v. State(Criminal Miscellaneous Application(Bail) No.409 of 2006) wherein this Court observed as follows:- "This Court in the case of Shri Yogesh Dhadellu v. State(Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 125 of 2003) by unreported Judgment dated 24-7-2003 after relying on the aforesaid Full Bench decisions of the Delhi and Rajasthan High Courts exercised powers under Section 482 of the Code and ordered the release of the applicant on bail by executing a bond to appear before the Court, as and when directed by the Court. As already stated, the applicant/approver in this case has been in custody for a period of two years and he has been already examined in the trial. No useful purpose would be served by continuing with his detention, even if the trial is likely to be completed in a month or two. The object to be achieved even by a provision like Section 306(4)(b) would not be defeated in case the applicant is ordered to be released on bail apart from the fact that the said provision would also be inapplicable to the facts of the case considering that the applicant was made an approver in terms of Section 307 of the Code. I have no reason to differ with the view held in R.T.O., Kolar v. S. R. V. Pathi(supra)". Apparently, the Applicant who was original accused no.5 in the said Special Case No.28/2006 has been examined as one of the witness of the prosecution, out of six who have been examined. It also appears that the prosecution is yet to examine about seventy two witnesses. In para 10 of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent, it is submitted that the safety of the Applicant is important as he has exposed the other accused, and his detention is not at all by way of punishment but for his own safety. It is stated that the father of the Applicant had filed an application before the Children's Court that they were pressurized by a lawyer and others to warn their son, not to disclose the truth by becoming an approver and that application is on record before the trial Court. It is further stated that the Applicant had also complained to the Presiding Officer of the Children's Court that he was badly assaulted by the jail authorities, while he was in Sub Jail at Sada, at the instance of other accused which confirms the intention of other accused in this case. Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that the Applicant has not supported their case and indeed it is submitted that he has supported the case. What is stated in the affidavit-in-reply, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel is more favourable for the Applicant to be released on bail rather than to refuse the same to him. True, it is not set out on behalf of the prosecution as to which of their witnesses would require the Applicant to be identified but that can certainly be taken care of by imposing a condition in the bail order that the Applicant should remain present before the trial Court as and when required. It appears that the Applicant would be more secure outside than inside the jail, at least for the present. As regards the allegation made by the Applicant's father that the Applicant was being pressurized by a lawyer and others, not to become an approver, I am sure would be taken care of and appropriate action taken in that regard by the learned trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the Applicant shall be admitted to bail, and shall be released upon execution of a bond of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and with a further condition that the Applicant will be available, if required, by the learned trial Court, for identification by the prosecution witnesses. Needless to observe till the trial is completed the Applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of that Court. Authenticated copy of the order be given to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.