The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for applications for anticipatory bail to contain clear and essential facts relating to the offense, and the need for proper reasoning and adherence to legal principles in granting ad-interim relief.

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. 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 FI