AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Reis, J.—All the above applications are taken up together as both the learned Counsel have pointed out that the facts in all of them are similar. Heard Shri N. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants and Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents.
Shri Sardessai, learned Counsel, has pointed out that the Applicants are employed with M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd., and posted as, Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager and/or employees at the four laning of the National Highway 17-B, situated at Vasco da Gama. He has further submitted that the said M/s. KMC Construction were awarded a contract to carry out the work of constructing the said road. He has further pointed out that neither the Mormugao Port Road Company Ltd., nor the National Highway Authority of India or any other person could provide to them the plan/drawing showing the location of any pipeline in the vicinity of the work allotted to M/s. KMC Constructions Ltd. He further pointed out that while the work was being carried out by the Applicants they encountered the pipeline belonging to Zuari Oil Tanking Company Pvt. Ltd., and immediately informed the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, the constructing Company to intervene in the matter. He further pointed out that after such information was given, a joint inspection of the site was carried out and no decisions was taken. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants were merely carrying out their work in terms of the allotment to said M/s. KMC Constructions and were not at all involved in any criminal offence as alleged by the Respondent. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants were always available for investigation and as and when they were called, the Applicants presented themselves for such investigation. The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the death of some persons, the police have further charged the Applicants and others with offence u/s 304 of I.P.C. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants were not at all aware nor had any knowledge about the existence of such pipeline and, as such, the question of invoking said Sections does not arise at all. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the Applicants are innocent and have only carried out their duties as entrusted to them and by no stretch of imagination they are involved in any offence and, in any event, even if the allegations made by the Respondents are accepted, it can be at the most considered as negligence and cannot be considered to be an offence u/s 304 of I.P.C. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Applicants are entitled to anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the Respondent. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the Judgments reported in 1999 (Suppl.) Bom. C.R. 228 in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra.
On the other hand, Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents has pointed out that no case is made out for any bail to the Applicants. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the Applicants are involved in grave offence and, as such, the question of granting any bail in the event of their arrest would not arise. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that though the Applicants have presented themselves for investigations, nevertheless, the Applicants are required for custodial interrogation. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the Applicants have committed offences u/s 304 of I.P.C. and, as such, considering that persons have died on account of the fire, the question of releasing the Applicants in the event of their arrest does not arise. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that this Court should not go into the aspects as to whether there is any material on record to substantiate the contentions of the Respondents that the Applicants have also committed offences punishable u/s 304 of the I.P.C. as any observations of this Court may hamper the investigations by the Respondents. The learned Public Prosecutor as such submitted that the above applications deserve to be rejected.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and have also perused the Judgments relied upon by the Applicants. I have also with the assistance of the Public Prosecutor perused the records and the reply filed by the Respondent. Taking note of the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, that it would not be appropriate to ascertain from the material on record whether, prima facie, the allegations of the Respondents are well founded, I will not consider this aspect at this stage. But, however, the Respondents have not made any grievance that the Applicants have not been co-operating with the investigations or that they have not appeared before the Investigating Officer as and when called for. Apart from that, the learned Public Prosecutor has also pointed out that the relevant documents sought by the Investigating Officer have been produced by the Applicants as directed. The Respondents have also not stated that there was any apprehension that the Applicants may abscond or may not be available for interrogations and/or investigation in connection with the FIR registered by the Respondents.
The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, , has held at Paras 112, 113 and 116 thus :
The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(iv) The possibility of the accused''s likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v)Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii)The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record.
114....
115....
Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
Considering the said Judgment of the Apex Court, I find that taking note of the material on record, there is no reason not to grant bail to the Applicants in the event of arrest of the Applicants. Considering that there is no specific material on record, prima facie, about the alleged knowledge of the Applicants and their alleged role in the offence, I find that there is no reason for any custodial interrogation of the Applicants at this stage. In view of the above, I find it appropriate that the Applicants are entitled for bail in the event of their arrest subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated herein below. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) In the event of the arrest of the Applicants, the Applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- each with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(ii) The Applicants shall report to the Vasco Police Station initially for a period of seven days from Monday i.e. 10.10.2011 between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and thereafter to report as per the requests of the Investigating Officer.
(iii) The Applicants shall not leave the State of Goa without permission of this Court until chargesheet is filed.
(iv) The Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or in any way influence the prosecution witnesses.
(v) The Applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and produce all documents, books and records as directed by the Investigating Officer from time to time.
(vi) All the above applications stand disposed of accordingly.