2014 (4) TMI 1284 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Bail - counterfeiting currency note or bank note - HELD THAT - The applicant, as stated in the complaint itself, is a permanent resident of Old Goa, Panaji and is not a stranger to the complainant and other witnesses who are mostly the employees of the said Company. It is not the case of the respondents that there are any criminal antecedents with regard to the applicant. Appropriate conditions can be imposed upon the applicant to ensure his presence during trial. The stage has come now to release the applicant on bail as no purpose will be served by detaining him in custody any more - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application for the accused.
2. Intervention application by the complainant.
3. Grounds for opposing bail.
4. Legal precedents and judgments cited.
5. Assessment of the accused's potential threat to witnesses and risk of absconding.
6. Conditions for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application for the Accused:
The applicant, arrested on 22/11/2013 in Crime No. 168 of 2013 for various offences under the IPC, filed Criminal Application (Bail) No. 84 of 2014. The investigation is now complete, and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions as Sessions Case No. 13 of 2014. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 06/12/2013.

2. Intervention Application by the Complainant:
M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Private Limited, through its Director, filed Stamp Number (Application) No. 1262 of 2014 to intervene in the bail application. The intervention was resisted on various grounds.

3. Grounds for Opposing Bail:
The Investigating Officer and the intervenor opposed the bail application. The primary objections were the risk of the applicant jumping bail and threatening the complainant and witnesses. However, it was noted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is well-known to the complainant and witnesses, who are mostly employees of the involved entities.

4. Legal Precedents and Judgments Cited:
Several judgments were cited, including:
- Gulabrao Baburao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra: Pertained to the cancellation of bail due to serious charges and insufficient opportunity for the Public Prosecutor to respond.
- Hanuman Vishwanath Nehare Vs. State of Maharashtra: Involved the cancellation of bail granted without hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor.
- State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Shantilal Nahar: Concerned the cancellation of bail for circulating fake currency notes.
- Puran Vs. Rambilas and another: Addressed the cancellation of bail granted without considering material evidence.
- Santosh Bhaurao Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra: Held that bail cannot be granted if there is a reasonable ground for believing the accused committed an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment.

The court found these precedents not applicable to the present case, which does not involve offenses punishable with death or life imprisonment and pertains to economic offenses concerning private money.

5. Assessment of the Accused's Potential Threat to Witnesses and Risk of Absconding:
The court noted that the fear of the applicant threatening witnesses was unfounded and fanciful. The applicant is a permanent resident of Old Goa, Panaji, and has no criminal antecedents. The court emphasized that deprivation of liberty before conviction should not be punitive and that the applicant should not be detained indefinitely pending trial.

6. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The court decided to grant bail with specific conditions to ensure the applicant's presence during the trial and prevent any potential tampering with evidence:
- Execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one solvent surety.
- Surrender of the applicant's passport to the trial court.
- Prohibition on making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case facts.
- Restriction on leaving India without the trial court's permission.
- Prohibition on indulging in any criminal activities during the bail period.

Conclusion:
The application for bail was allowed, and the applicant was granted bail under specified conditions. The intervention application was disposed of accordingly. The court highlighted the importance of balancing the need for securing the accused's presence at trial with the principle that pre-trial detention should not be punitive.