The main legal point established in the judgment is that orders granting bail can be set aside if found to be perverse, illegal, or unjustified, especially in cases involving serious allegations.

JUDGMENT

1. The State of Goa has filed the present application seeking quashing and setting aside of an order dtd. 21/10/2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC) at Mapusa, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the "Sessions Court") whereby anticipatory bail application filed by the respondent was allowed. According to the State, the order is unsustainable, as it is against the tenets governing grant of an application for anticipatory bail. It is specifically contended that the facts of the present case were not taken into consideration in the proper perspective by the Sessions Court while granting relief to the respondent.

2. On 22/1/2018, FIR No. 11/2018 came to be registered at Pernem Police Station, North Goa, against the respondent and five others for offences under Ss. 193, 209, 205, 404, 406, 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 read with Sec. 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. The said FIR came to be registered on the basis of the written complaint dtd. 20/1/2018, submitted by the Director of Civil Aviation, Government of Goa, before the aforesaid police station. The allegations in the said complaint, in brief, were that the respondent along with the other accused persons, particularly accused no. 2 Francy Gonsalves had fabricated documents in order to illegally usurp compensation for acquisition of land, thereby causing huge loss to the Government exchequer. It was alleged that the respondent along with co-accused Francy Gonsalves, prepared a fabricated power of attorney dtd. 29/7/2007, concerning land admeasuring 74800 sq. mts. The original owner, one Laxmibai Madival, was purported to have executed the said power of attorney in favour of the co-accused Francy Gonsalves. It was alleged that the said power of attorney was got executed by impersonating the said Laxmibai Madival. The power of attorney was merely notarised.

4. Although notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 25/7/2008 and notification under Sec. 6 thereof was issued on 28/7/2009, for Mopa Airport Project, on the basis of the aforesaid alleged fabricated power of attorney, on 29/7/2010, the co-accused Francy Gonsalves executed sale deed in respect of the said land in favour of the respondent. It has come on record that the aforesaid sale deed was executed, on the respondent giving two cheques of Rs.50.00 lakhs each and cash amount of Rs.19,68,000.00 towards consideration. The said cheques were never encashed. The respondent claimed that the cheques were never encashed because he came to know that the land was under acquisition and there was understanding between the parties that the said property was now being sold only for Rs.13.00 lakhs, due to which the said Laxmibai Madival allegedly refunded the amount of Rs.6,68,000.00 to the respondent. It has also come on record that the respondent wrote a letter, much later, on 13/8/2012 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer that he had only very recently i.e. on 11/8/2012 realised that the land was under acquisition and that he ought to be given full market value of the land under acquisition, as he had a ready purchaser of the property for about Rs.15.00 crores.

5. The Director of Civil Aviation, in the complaint, specifically stated that there was a conspiracy to cause loss to the Government exchequer because the respondent had already picked up the compensation amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to the tune of Rs.49,83, 709.00 and as per Government policy three times the awarded compensation was also likely to be disbursed to the respondent. It was stated in the complaint that the said enhanced amount was sanctioned as per the policy to all claimants, in which name of the respondent was included. It was then stated that since a complaint was received on 7/11/2017 from one Suresh Chopdenkar about the manner in which the respondent and co-accused Francy Gonsalves had conspired in the present case, the enhanced amount was not disbursed and the c