1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 74 of 2011 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 75 of 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 74 of 2011 Ms. Supriya Naik, 30 years of age, R/o. H. No. 361, Assoi Dongri, Dabolim, Airport Road, Goa. ... Applicant Versus 1. STATE Through the Public Prosecutor. 2. Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station. ... Respondents CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 75 of 2011 Mrs. Shali Naik, 56 years of age, w/o Ramdas Naik, R/o. H. No. 361, Assoi Dongri, Dabolim, Airport Road, Goa. ... Applicant Versus 2 1. STATE Through the Public Prosecutor. 2. Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station. ... Respondents Mr. R. Naik, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 25 th May, 2011 . ORDER: Heard learned Counsel, Mr. R. Naik, for the applicants and learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. The applicants are the accused in Crime No. 49/11, lodged at Vasco Police Station by Smt. Savita Naik under Sections 352, 326 and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. It is the case of the informant, Smt. Savita S. Naik that on 19-04-2011, between 23:00 hours to 23:30 hours, near 3 House No. 361, Assoi Dongri, Dabolim, Vasco, Goa, the applicant alongwith Arjun Ramdas Naik, brother of Supriya Naik assaulted the informant, her sister-in-law Pratiskha Naik and her mother-in-law Lata Naik with sword, knife and kicks causing them injuries. 3. It appears that Supriya Naik has also lodged F.I.R. No. 50/11 under Sections 324, 452, 143 and 148 r/w 149 I.P.C. against Seema Naik, Sandeep Naik, Savita Naik, Lata Naik, Prashika Naik and Madhu Naik alleging that all accused assaulted her brother, Arjun Naik with deadly weapons such as talwar, rods, knife and trespassed in the property. 4. The applicants filed applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao which have been dismissed vide orders dated 27-04-2011. 4 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the considered opinion that having regard to the nature of the offences alleged against the applicants and injuries caused to the victims, this is not a fit case in which order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. deserves to be made in favour of the applicants. In the present case investigation is at initial stage and the offences are serious in nature. It is well settled that consideration for grant of bail and anticipatory bail are different as held by the Apex Court in Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R., 1985 S.C. 969. Considering the seriousness of the offences alleged against the applicants and the weapons used in the commission of the alleged offence and the injuries caused to the victims as disclosed from the perusal of the case papers, I am of the considered opinion that the applicants do not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail. Mere fact that the applicants have reported at police station would not entitle them to 5 relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Needless to mention that dismissal of this application would not come in the way of the applicants from seeking bail from the appropriate Court and if such applications are filed by the applicants before the appropriate Court, the appropriate Court shall deal with the same and dispose of the applications on their own merits. 7. In view of the above, the applications are dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. Ev