Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 237 (BOM)

State Of Goa v. Mahesh Tanna

2022-01-24

MANISH PITALE

body2022
JUDGMENT Manish Pitale, J. - Heard Mr. S.G. Bhobe, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Applicant--State. 2. This is an application challenging an order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Court of Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, FTC at Mapusa, in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8 of 2022. 3. Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel, on instructions, has appeared on behalf of the Respondent(Accused). 4. The Applicant-State is aggrieved by the manner in which the aforesaid Court has passed the Order dated 18.01.2022, granting ad-interim bail to the Respondent on certain conditions. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the manner in which the order is passed is in the teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was recently reiterated by this Court. 5. Attention of this Court is invited to contents of the application for anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the Respondent, stating that there is no reference to the version of the Respondent as regards the incident in question and that it is found on investigation by the concerned Officer that the statement regarding the Respondent being an Indian National, is false and that the address of the State of Goa given in the application is also found to be closed when the concerned Officer visited the same. It is also highlighted that although the application states that the Applicant is presently residing at Calangute in Goa, the affidavit supporting the application is notarized at Mumbai. In this light, it is submitted that the aforesaid Court ought not to have passed such an ad-interim order without even putting the Public Prosecutor to notice and that, therefore, the order deserves interference. 6. Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, submits that the application for anticipatory bail can be decided at the earliest and that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order in question may not be interfered with. 7. A perusal of the FIR dated 12.01.2022, shows that offences under Section 336, 272 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with offence under the provisions of the Goa Daman and Diu Excise Duty Act 1964, have been registered against the Respondent. It is recorded that a huge cache of alleged spurious alcohol worth Rs. 52,92,540/- has been recovered by the raiding party. 8. It is recorded that a huge cache of alleged spurious alcohol worth Rs. 52,92,540/- has been recovered by the raiding party. 8. A perusal of the application for anticipatory bail filed by the Respondent shows that while he is shown as a resident of Mumbai, it is stated that he is presently residing at an address at Calangute, Goa. Yet, the supporting affidavit is notarised at Mumbai. It is stated that the Applicant came to know about the incident on the basis of a news item published in a local newspaper. Thereafter, the Respondent has simply stated that since he belongs to a respectable family, his arrest would cast a stigma on his career and business prospects. There is not an iota of statement made as regards the version of the Respondent in respect of the offence registered against him. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor is justified in relying upon the following paragraph from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1 ''85.1 - As held in Sibbia, when a person apprehends arrest and approaches a court for anticipatory bail, his apprehension (of arrest), has to be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable a specific offence or particular of offences. Applications for anticipatory bail should contain clear and essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends his or her arrest, as well as his version of the facts. These are important for the court which considering the application, to extent and reasonableness of the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not a necessary condition that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.'' 10. As noted above, the application filed by the Respondent before the aforesaid Court is completely bereft of any of the details as expected under the said position of law. As noted above, the application filed by the Respondent before the aforesaid Court is completely bereft of any of the details as expected under the said position of law. It is to be noted that the aforesaid Court presided over by the same Judicial Officer, had recently passed such an order which came up for consideration before this Court in CRMAB No. 693/2021(F), wherein, this Court found that the order was cryptic and that there was no reasoning as to why the ad-interim order of protection from arrest was granted to the Accused in the said case. After taking note of the fact that the said Court ought not to have passed such an order, this Court directed the application for anticipatory bail itself to be decided on the next date of listing. 11. Despite the aforesaid order dated 14.10.2021 passed in similar situation in CRMAB No. 693/2021-F, it is difficult to understand why the aforesaid Court has passed a similar/identical order in the present case. A perusal of the order dated 18.01.2022, placed before this Court shows that the aforesaid Court has not adverted to any kind of version put forth on behalf of the Respondent in respect of the incident in question and the crime registered against the Respondent. There is absolutely no reasoning as to why the aforesaid Court thought it fit to grant ad-interim relief to the Respondent. The conditions imposed also appear to be lenient when the nature of offence is taken into consideration. 12. In this situation, this Court is inclined to interfere with the aforesaid order to the limited extent of modifying the conditions imposed on the Respondent. The Applicant-State would be at liberty to place on record material before the aforesaid Court to demonstrate that a statement made in the application as regards the nationality of the Respondent and his place of residence are found to be false on investigation. The aforesaid Court shall take into consideration the settled position of law while considering the application for anticipatory bail filed by the Respondent. 13. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of by modifying the conditions imposed on the Respondent and it is directed as follows: (i) The Respondent shall report to the Calangute Police Station everyday from today i.e. 24.01.2022, till the application for anticipatory bail is disposed of by the aforesaid Court. 13. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of by modifying the conditions imposed on the Respondent and it is directed as follows: (i) The Respondent shall report to the Calangute Police Station everyday from today i.e. 24.01.2022, till the application for anticipatory bail is disposed of by the aforesaid Court. (ii) Today, the Respondent shall report to the Calangute Police Station between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. From tomorrow onwards, the Respondent shall report to the Calangute Police Station between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon. (iii) The Respondent shall produce all documents as demanded by the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate with the investigation. (iv) The Respondent shall not leave the State of Goa during the pendency of the application for anticipatory bail before the aforesaid Court. (v) The Respondent shall place a copy of valid passport, if any, with the Investigating Officer by tomorrow i.e. 25.01.2022. 14. Before parting with the present case, this Court would like to place on record its surprise and anguish at the manner in which the aforesaid Court is repeatedly passing orders in the face of the settled position of law. It is expected that the aforesaid Court shall decide the application for anticipatory bail filed by the Respondent by the next date of listing i.e. 27.01.2022. 15. It is expected that the aforesaid position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reiterated by this Court in various cases concerning the manner in which ad-interim anticipatory bail is to be granted, is followed in its true spirit by the said Court. 16. Needless to say, the aforesaid Court shall proceed to decide the application for anticipatory bail strictly in accordance with law. 17. Parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.