:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 284 OF 2010 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 285 OF 2010 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 284 OF 2010 Mr. Prabhakar Ramnath Diukar … Applicant V e r s u s State of Goa & Ors. … Respondents Mr. J. P. D'Souza with Mr. K. Poulekar and Mr. U. Gaonkar, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. Mr. R. Menezes, Advocate for the Intervenor. AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 285 OF 2010 Surendra Ramnath Diukar … Applicant V e r s u s State of Goa & Ors. …. Respondents Mr. J. P. D'Souza with Mr. K. Poulekar and Mr. U. Gaonkar, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. Mr. R. Menezes, Advocate for the Intervenor. :2: CORAM : F. M. REIS, J. DATE : 3 rd JANUARY, 2011. P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants and learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. I have also heard Shri R. Menezes who sought intervention being the complainant in the above case. With the assistance of the learned Counsel and learned Public Prosecutor, I have perused the records as well as the reply filed by the State to the above applications. I have also gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge whilst rejecting the bail applications. 2. After perusing the records and hearing the learned Counsel, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has essentially rejected the bail applications on the ground that the injured was not discharged from the hospital and that there were reports of some serious injuries to the injured and the weapon was not recovered. I have perused the hurt certificate and found that the injuries are stated to be simple in nature and that the injured has also been discharged from the G.M.C. on 24th December, 2010. The alleged weapon was also attached during the course of the investigation. :3: 3. Shri R. Menezes has objected to the grant of bail essentially on the ground that the injuries are serious in nature and there is an apprehension that the Applicant/accused may intimidate the witnesses or there may be further assault on the complainant and her family members and interference with the property. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of what has been stated above, I find that a case is made out by the Applicants for grant of bail subject to conditions. The apprehension that the accused may interfere with the witnesses has not been substantiated. 5. In the light of the above, the applications are bound to succeed. (i) The Applicants/accused shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- ( Rupees Ten Thousand Only ) to the satisfaction of the J.M.F.C., Mapusa, with one surety in the like amount. (ii) The Applicants/accused shall not tamper with any of the evidence and shall report as and when required by the Investigating Officer for a period of 30 days from today. (iii) The Applicants/accused shall not physically contact the complainant and/or her family members and shall not intimidate the witnesses. :4: 6. Humdast allowed. Parties are directed to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 7. Applications stand disposed of accordingly. F. M. REIS, J. at*