JUDGMENT Manish Pitale, J. - By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with FIR No. 255/2021 dated 18.11.2021, registered at Mapusa Police Station, against the applicant for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 452, 307, 201 and 120-B read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. The applicant was arrested on 21.11.2021, during the course of investigation. The application for bail filed by the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court. It is also an admitted position on record that one of the co-accused persons was granted bail by this Court by order dated 31.01.2022, passed in CRMaB No. 13 of 2022 (F). 3. Mr. amonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in the present case, the FIR named only one accused person, and the complaint itself states that apart from the named accused person, there were other unknown persons, who had assaulted the victims. It appears that during the course of the assault, both the victims suffered injuries, one of whom appears to have suffered injuries on his hands and legs. It is submitted that although, the applicant is not specifically named in the FIR, he came to be arrested in connection with the said offence. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that none of the witnesses whose statements were recorded, have named the applicant. It was submitted that there is no recovery, either of the alleged vehicle used at the time of the incident or the weapons at the behest of the applicant. It was submitted that it is only on the memorandum executed under Section 27 of the Evidence act by the applicant himself, that appears to be the basis for the Investigating authority to proceed against the applicant, apart from certain statements made by the other co-accused persons. It was submitted that there is no material placed on record to link the applicant with the other co-accused persons. 4. Mr. Faldessai, learned additional Public Prosecutor has filed say on behalf of the respondents. It is stated therein that the presence of the applicant is required for the purpose of investigation. Thereafter, general grounds have been stated for opposing grant of bail to the applicant. 5. This Court has perused the copy of the chargesheet filed alongwith the accompanying documents. a perusal of the complaint, leading to registration of the FIR, shows that only one accused person is named. Thereafter, general grounds have been stated for opposing grant of bail to the applicant. 5. This Court has perused the copy of the chargesheet filed alongwith the accompanying documents. a perusal of the complaint, leading to registration of the FIR, shows that only one accused person is named. It is stated that the associates of the said specifically named accused person, were involved in the incident. The applicant was arrested on 21.11.2021 i.e. after three days of the registration of the FIR. It appears that the involvement of the applicant is alleged on the basis of the statements made by the co-accused persons and the alleged disclosures made by the applicant himself in the memorandum executed under Section 27 of the Evidence act. 6. Neither the alleged vehicle used in the incident in question nor the weapons were recovered at the behest of the applicant. None of the witnesses whose statements were recorded during the course of investigation have named the applicant as one of the assailants. In fact, the complainant/informant merely stated that he could identify the assailants from their physical appearance and face. It is an admitted position that no test identification parade was conducted in the present case. The chargesheet came to be filed on 15.02.2022. On the face of such material, it becomes clear that other than the statements made by the co-accused persons and the alleged disclosures by the applicant himself, at this stage, there does not appear to be strong and convincing material to connect the applicant with the incident in question. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant has criminal antecedents. 7. a bare perusal of the say filed on behalf of the respondents does show that according to the respondents, the presence of the applicant is required for the purpose of investigation. However, there is no material to indicate as to in what manner the Investigating Officer contemplates further investigation in the matter. Even if the presence of the applicant is required in future, appropriate conditions can be imposed upon the applicant. 8. In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms: (a) The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 255/2021 dated 18.11.2021, registered at Mapusa Police Station on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. 8. In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms: (a) The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 255/2021 dated 18.11.2021, registered at Mapusa Police Station on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (b) The applicant shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (c) The applicant shall co-operate with the concerned Court during further proceedings in the matter. (d) The applicant shall not himself or through any other person act in any manner that would amount to tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses. (e) The applicant shall not leave the State of Goa without prior permission of the concerned Court. (f) Needless to say, that violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall make the applicant liable for cancellation of bail. (g) It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of entitlement of grant of bail to the applicant and the Trial Court shall proceed further with the matter, without being influenced by the observations made in the present order.