IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 273 OF 2008 SHRI. KRISHNA KASHINATH GADEKAR ... Applicant Versus STATE THROUGH P. I. ATTACHED TO PERNEM POLICE STATION AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Arjun F. Naik,Advocate for the applicant. Ms. W.Coutinho, Advocate for respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 23rd October, 2008 P.C. 1. The reply filed on behalf of the respondents, is taken on record. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Counsel for the applicant and Ms. Coutinho, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. The applicant against whom crime No.124/2008 has been registered for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 379 and 427 of I.P.C., has approached this Court after his application seeking similar relief, has been rejected by the Sessions Court,Panaji by the order dated 17.10.2008. 3. On 09.10.2008, Shivaji Ganesh Parsekar lodged the report at Pernem Police Station alleging that on the same day at about 10.30 a.m., when he was measuring his property at Madhalamaj, Mandrem in presence of Vidyadhar Parsekar, Dinesh Parsekar and Sanjay Parsekar, the applicant came there abused him with filthy words and caught hold of his neck, gave slap on his neck and during the scuffle, gold chain from his neck was broken and a piece of gold chain was taken away by the applicant. Pursuant to the said report, FIR under Sections 323,379 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered. 4. Mr. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that except Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, all other offences are bailable and having regard to the nature of the crime alleged against the applicant, the custodial interrogation of the application, is not warranted. He further submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and comply with all the conditions that will be imposed by this Court. 5. Per contra, Ms. W. Coutinho, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that having regard to the nature of the offences committed, the applicant is not entitled to the anticipatory bail. She further submitted that the respondents want custodial interrogation of the applicant and also want the custody of the applicant for recovery of piece of gold chain which was taken away by the applicant. She, therefore, submitted that the application deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case papers. Except Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, all other offences alleged against the applicant, are bailable. The informant claims that the applicant has taken away the piece of gold chain that was broken during the scuffle. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the applicant and considering the factual background for which the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant, in my considered opinion, this is not fit case for granting custodial interrogation of the applicant. The prayer for anticipatory bail,is not liable to be rejected on the sole ground that the respondents want to recover broken gold chain. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances and the offence alleged against the applicants, I am of the considered opinion that this is fit case in which the applicant deserves to be released on bail in the event of his arrest. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with crime No.124/2008 registered for the offences under Sections 323,504, 379 and 427 of Indian Penal Code at Pernem Police Station, the applicant shall be released upon executing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount and subject to following conditions : (i) The applicant shall remain present at Pernem Police Station for a period of 3 days beginning from 24.10.2008 between 9.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and thereafter, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (ii) The applicant shall not reside within Mandrem village for a period of two weeks and shall reside at any other place and shall furnish his residential address in writing to the Investigating Officer on the first day of his reporting to the Pernem Police Station (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity. It is made clear that in event of breach of any of these conditions, the respondents are at liberty to arrest the accused notwithstanding the fact that the application is being allowed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA