SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 1964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. Karnik, J.
Rajdeep Pundalik Kundaikar - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Criminal Application (Bail) No. 373 of 2023 (F)
Decided On : 12-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ryan Menezes, Advocate, Gina Almeida, Advocate, Smita Shirodkar, Advocate, Rohit Shirodkar, Advocate, Stephanie Alvares, Advocate, G. Nagvenkar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-arrest bail can be granted when the applicant cooperates with the investigation and when the FIR is not available, reflecting the court's discretion in balancing the rights of the accused and the interests of justice.

Headnote:

PRE-ARREST BAIL - INDIAN PENAL CODE - The court granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant, emphasizing the importance of cooperation with the investigation and the absence of the FIR at the time of the hearing. The court highlighted the applicant's willingness to attend the Investigating Officer and the need for interim protection due to the serious nature of the charges under IPC sections 406, 465, 468, and 420.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought pre-arrest bail concerning FIR No. 43/2023 for alleged offences under IPC sections 406, 465, 468, and 420. The applicant claimed that the allegations stemmed from a Power of Attorney executed for transactions related to a civil suit already filed by the complainant. The FIR was not available at the time of the hearing, and the applicant's arrest was apprehended.

Finding of the Court:

The court noted that the applicant had joined the investigation and was cooperating. It recognized the absence of the FIR and the need for further verification. The court decided to grant pre-arrest bail, considering the applicant's cooperation and the serious nature of the charges.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted pre-arrest bail in light of the allegations and the ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that pre-arrest bail could be granted when the applicant cooperates with the investigation and when the FIR is not available, indicating a lack of immediate threat of arrest.

Final Decision: The court granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant, subject to conditions including reporting to the Investigating Officer and not tampering with evidence.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 465, 468, 420 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. On 24/5/2023, this Court passed the following order :

"1. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with CR No.43/2023 registered in Margao Town Police Station invoking Ss. 406, 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

2. A copy of the FIR is not placed on record and statement comes from the learned Counsel for the applicant that the same is not available to him and the same is not uploaded.

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor to ascertain why the FIR is not uploaded. The learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently submitted that the involvement of the applicant on the basis of the Power of Attorney being executed for the purpose of effecting further transaction, is the allegation faced by him. However, he also made a categorical statement that in respect of the said cause a grievance has already been made by the complainant in the form of a Civil Suit, and an attempt was made to file an FIR to be investigated by the SIT constituted for the purpose of looking into matters of land grabbing, but the specific statement is made by him that the said FIR was refused to be registered and the SIT referred the complaint to the concerned police station. As a result of it, FIR was not persuaded, and it is only in the year 2023 that, a fresh FIR has been registered in the Margao Town Police Station.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks time to obtain instructions and verify authenticity. Since the FIR is not even with him, it would be appropriate to call for a copy of the FIR from the concerned police station. In these circumstances, renotify to 31/5/2023.

5. In the meantime, the arrest of the applicant shall not be effected."

4. Notice under Sec. 41 (A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was issued to the applicant. The learned additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that the applicant joined the investigation. However, the applicant needs to attend the Investigating Officer for further investigation.

5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant will cooperate with the investigation and is ready to attend the Investigating Officer on whatever dates the Investigating Officer wants him to attend and, in any case, as and when call for by the Investigating Officer. The maximum punishment which can be imposed under the provisions is seven years rigorous imprisonment.

6. Taking an over all view of the matter now that the applicant has joined the investigation and is cooperating, the interim protection need to be confirmed and the applicant can be granted pre-arrest bail. Hence, the following order is passed :

ORDER

(i) In the event of the arrest in connection with CR No. 43/2023 registered with Margao Town Police Station, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000.00 with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

(ii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer for a period of three weeks on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, as presently requested by the Additional Public Prosecutor on the instructions of the Investigating Officer, commencing from 19/6/2023; thereafter, the applicant shall cooperate and report to the Investigating Officer as and when called.

(iii) The applicant shall furnish his contact details and his residential address to the Investigating Officer and inform of change, if any.

(iv) As and when the chargesheet is filed, the applicant has to attend the trial regularly. (v) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the prosecution witnesses.

7. Application is disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top