Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1388 (BOM)

Akshat Sushil Agarwal v. State Of Goa

2022-05-31

R.N.LADDHA

body2022
JUDGMENT R.N. Laddha, J. - Heard Mr. V. aggarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/State. 2. By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with CR. (FIR) No.87/2022 dated 02.05.2022, registered at Ponda Police Station, against the applicant for the offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested on the date of registration of the crime, i.e. 02.05.2022, and he has continued behind bars since then. His application for grant of bail was rejected by the Sessions Court by its order dated 18.05.2022. 3. The allegations is brief against the applicant are that on 02.05.2022 at 09:45hrs the applicant/accused drove his vehicle bearing registration no.DL-10-CL-7395 in dangerous manner and gave dash to vehicle bearing registration no.Ga-04-E-2414. after committing this accident he fled from the spot and went in the direction of Usgao and while on the way to Usgao at Opa road junction, intentionally hit Police Constable Sagar Patekar in order to prevent said Patekar from stopping and arresting him. He went further away after causing grievous injuries to the said Police Constable and rammed his vehicle into tree near amigos Hotel, Tatodi, where he was apprehended by the Police. 4. It is submitted that the investigation has already been completed, the evidence has been documented and the vehicle has been seized. It is further submitted that the applicant has been thoroughly interrogated by the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the applicant is no more required for any further investigation and there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. It is further submitted that the applicant is an established businessman with roots in the society and that there is no basis for a reasonable apprehension that the applicant will flee from justice if he is released on bail. It is contented that since the main witnesses are official witnesses, there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence if he is released on bail. The applicant has been in custody since 02.05.2022 and has no criminal antecedents. 5. Mr. Shailendra Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State invited attention of this Court to the say filed in response to the application. The applicant has been in custody since 02.05.2022 and has no criminal antecedents. 5. Mr. Shailendra Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State invited attention of this Court to the say filed in response to the application. It is submitted that offence committed by the applicant is very serious in nature as the accused has intentionally hit the Police Constable who was performing his lawful duty causing him serious injuries. In his view, considering the seriousness of the case and the evidence on record, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. This application for bail is opposed also on the ground that alongwith official witnesses there are independent witnesses and there is further possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence and fleeing from justice if he is released on bail. 6. The applicant is accused of offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code and on conviction, the maximum sentence that can be imposed on him is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine. The applicant was arrested on 02.05.2022 and he has been in custody since then. The investigation is almost complete. The vehicle has been seized by the Police. No further recovery is to be effected. The main witnesses are official witnesses. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court which could lead to a reasonable apprehension that the applicant would flee from justice or would tamper with evidence or witnesses if he is released on bail. From the perusal of the say filed by the Prosecution, more particularly paragraph 9 of the say, it appears that the necessary evidence against the applicant has already been collected. The apprehension of the Prosecution that the applicant would flee from justice can be taken care of by imposition of suitable conditions. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification for detaining the applicant in prison any longer. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. accordingly, the application is allowed in the following terms: (a) The applicant shall be released on bail in Cr. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. accordingly, the application is allowed in the following terms: (a) The applicant shall be released on bail in Cr. (FIR) No.87/2022 dated 02.05.2022 registered at Ponda Police Station, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (B) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (C) The applicant shall furnish photographs of his PaN and aadhaar card to the Investigating Officer. (D) The applicant shall also furnish his detailed address and contact numbers including mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and in case of any change, the details regarding the same. (E) The applicant shall not himself or through any person act in any manner that would amount to tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses. 8. Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall make the applicant liable to have his bail cancelled. 9. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.