Shri Pedro @ Peter Ferrao vs State

N.A. Britto, J.—Heard Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant and Ms. Winnie Coutinho, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. Crime No.93/08 has been registered at Maina, Curtorim Police Station under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 506(ii) r/w 149 I.P.C. The applicant herein approached the learned Sessions Judge, Margao with an application for anticipatory bail who by Order dated 29-8-2008 was pleased to dismiss the same.

The applicant''s brother who was involved in the same crime was arrested, remanded to custody and then was released by this Court by Order dated 2-9-2008. Another accused by name Neves was also arrested and subsequently released by the learned J.M.F.C.

The incident took place at about 21.50 hours and it is stated that it was sequel to what transpired at the Gram Sabha meeting held on that day. On behalf of the respondent, a reply has been filed particularly to show the antecedents of the present applicant. In the reply filed, it is stated that the applicant was involved in Crime No.72/08 under Sections 326 and 506(ii) r/w 34 I.P.C. Earlier on 19-5-2003 another Crime No.30/03 under Sections 285 and 407 r/w 34 I.P.C. was registered against the applicant and earlier to that on 1-10-2000 another Crime No.92/2000 was registered under Sections 457, 352, 504 r/w 34 I.P.C. against the applicant.

Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant has placed reliance on the case of Bharat Chaudhary and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another, and has submitted that most of the offences except the offence u/s 506(ii) I.P.C., are bailable. Learned Counsel further submits that just because a case has been registered against the applicant in the past that certainly would not show that the applicant has bad antecedents. He further submits that the case has been registered out of political rivalry.

There is no doubt that most of the offences except the offence u/s 506(ii) I.P.C. are bailable. However, it can be safely inferred that the bail granted to the applicant after he was arrested in Crime No.72/08 has been immediately used as a license to commit this crime. The other instances pointed out on behalf of the respondents do not particularly show that the applicant is a person of good antecedents. The reply filed shows that the applicant is prima facie involved in the incident. This can''t be said to be a case of undue harassment only because the applicant has alleged political rivalry. Being so, in my view, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application is therefore hereby dismissed.