IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 188 OF 2011 AMAR TALWADKAR, PRESENTLY IN SADA JAIL, VASCO, THROUGH HIS WIFE SMT. SUSHMA TALWADKAR ... Applicant Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR., ... Respondent Shri S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Pai Kir, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri C.A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 23rd September, 2011 P.C.: Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri C.A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 2. The above application is filed by the applicant for bail on the ground that the applicant has been arrested in Crime No.52/2005 and has been charge sheeted by the Maina Curtorim police station under Sections 465, 466, 467 and 468 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant further states that his charge sheet has been filed in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Margao and the subject matter is Criminal Case No.101/S/2010/A. The applicant is presently in judicial custody and the trial in respect of the said case is proceeding before the learned Magistrate. The applicant further states that it was the case of the prosecution that the applicant was absconding and was arrested by the police on or about 8/04/2011. An application for bail was filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao which came to be rejected vide order dated 1/08/2011 passed in Bail Application no.146/2011. The applicant further states that his bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge essentially on the ground that he had not disclosed to the Court his correct permanent address in the State of Goa. Though according to him his permanent address was mentioned in the cause title as being Flat No.56, Green Valley, Off. Chogam Road, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. He further states that he would comply with any conditions imposed in case the bail is granted to the applicant. 3. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has pointed out that the bail was refused to the applicant only on the ground that his permanent address was not disclosed by the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the address which has been furnished by the applicant is the place where admittedly the wife and children are residing along with his in laws and as such the question of the applicant not being available at the time of trial of the proceedings would not arise. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that in some other cases wherein the applicant is an accused, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Margao has granted bail to the applicant by order dated 20/04/2011 in Bail Application no.52/2011/A. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that the applicant shall abide with any conditions imposed on the applicant and will be present at the time of the trial of the proceedings in the said criminal case. 4. On the other hand, Shri C.A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that according to the prosecution the address furnished by the applicant is a fake address as according to him the applicant never resided at the said address at Porvorim. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that it is well settled by the Apex Court that at the time of granting the bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of the accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that considering the character and the behaviour of the accused there is no case made out by the applicant to grant any bail in the present proceedings. 5. On the last date of hearing Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant was asked to furnish the address where the applicant would be residing in the State of Goa and respondent was called upon to ascertain the correctness of the said address. In an affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Crime Branch, Dona Paula, Goa, he has stated that the address furnished by the applicant is the same as that which was furnished before the Sessions Court. Whilst filing the report annexed to the said affidavit the police inspector has found upon inquiries that the address furnished by the applicant show that Sushma, wife of the applicant is residing in the bungalow at Flat no.56, Green Valley, Off. Chogam Road, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa, since last three years along with her son who is 6 years old and her brother, sister in law and their twin daughters. 6. Considering the said aspect, as it is found that the wife of the applicant is residing at the said address for the last three years and the above application for bail is filed through his wife, I find that at this stage the apprehension of the respondent that the applicant would not be available at the time of trial of the case cannot be said to be justified. Apart from that, it is also not disputed that in another proceedings wherein the applicant is involved, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has granted the bail as referred to herein above. The main concern of the respondent in the reply is that the applicant has no residence in Goa and that he moves with forged documents. I find no material produced by the respondent about any bad character of the applicant at this stage to deny the applicant of bail. Admittedly, the house at Colvale was seized which forced him to now shift to the said address at Porvorim. 7. Considering all these circumstances of the case, I find that the applicant is not required to be kept in judicial custody during the pendency of the said criminal case. The applicant would be entitled for bail pending the trial subject to conditions. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following order; (i) The applicant be released on bail subject to he furnishing a security bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The applicant shall not leave the State of Goa without the permission of the learned Magistrate where the criminal case is pending. (iii) The applicant shall not change the address mentioned by him namely Flat No.56, Green Valley, Off. Chogam Road, Alto Porvorim, Bardez, Goa, during the trial of the said criminal proceedings without seeking written permission of the learned Magistrate, where the criminal case is pending. (iv) The applicant shall attend the trial of the criminal proceedings as and when the proceedings are fixed by the learned Magistrate. (v) Application stands disposed of. (vi) Issue authenticated copy as prayed for by the applicant. F. M. REIS, J. NH