- 1 - 904-crmab-26-2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION(BAIL) NO.26 of 2021.

MAXSON ROSARIO,

PRESENTLY LODGE IN

JUDICIAL CUSTODY

AT CENTRAL JAIL,

COLVALE

….Applicant.

Vs.

POLICE INSPECTOR,

PORVORIM POLICE STATION,

PORVORIM AND ANR.

…. Respondents.

Shri Arun Bras Desa and Shri Sahil Sardessai, Advocates for the

applicant.

Shri P. Faldessai, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

Coram:- M. S. JAWALKAR, J.

Date:-23^rd February, 2021.

P.C.:-

The applicant is the accused in FIR No.11/2019, for the alleged

offences under Sections 364A, 394, 342, 504 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2.

Facts of the case in brief are that on 23.1.2019 the complainant

resident of Porvorim lodged his complaint to the effect that on 22.1.20019

from 17.15 hrs to 16.00 hrs of 23.1.20219, four unknown persons with

their common intention abducted the complainant on the pretext of

showing the bungalow for renovation and wrongfully confined him in a

closed room by tying his hands, legs and mouth with the help of rope and

cloth material and abused him in filthy words and assaulted with slaps and

forcefully snatched way his belonging worth Rs.3,80,000/-. The accused

persons also demanded Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant in exchange

- 2 - 904-crmab-26-2021.doc

of his life. The petitioner was arrested on 21.2.2019. He has been in jail

ever since.

3.

Heard Shri A. Desa, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri

Pravin Faldessai, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

respondents.

4

It appears that vide order dated 18.12.2020, the Additional Sessions

Judge, Mapusa dismissed the application for bail on the ground that there

was bail application filed earlier after recording of deposition of PW1

which came to be dismissed and there was no challenge to it.

5.

Now, the applicant has come before this Court for the first time.

The ground for filing present bail application is that the testimony of

PW1 does not prima facie spell out the ingredients of the offence

punishable under Sections 364A, 394, 342, 504 read with Section 34 of

IPC. Moreover, the substantive evidence of a witness is his statement in

Court which indicates innocence of the applicant. The Identification

Parade cannot be substantive piece of evidence. It is only for the

investigation purpose. The learned counsel also pointed out from the

deposition of PW1/complainant that he was cross examined by the Public

Prosecutor as he was not supporting the case. He has deposed that he

identified the accused no.1 and 2 to be the said person whom he had

identified before the Magistrate at Mapusa. He further categorically

deposed that photographs of accused no.1 and 2 was shown to him by

Porvorim Police Station at Police Station prior to identification before the

- 3 - 904-crmab-26-2021.doc

Magistrate. He shows his inability to identify the accused no.1, 2 and 3,

as persons present in the car. He also deposed that he was not paying

attention to their faces and was concentrating on driving his own car. In

view of this statement made by the complainant there is no propriety in

keeping the applicant behind the bar. It appears that the applicant is

resident of Goa itself and by imposing stringent conditions he can be

released on bail. The second bail application was rejected only on the

ground that the earlier bail application was rejected and there was no

challenge to the said order.

6.

In my considered opinion deposition of PW1 is sufficient to release

the applicant on bail . Accordingly, I pass the following:-

ORDER

(i)

The application of bail is allowed.

(ii) The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his

executin