The State Of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Calangute Police Station v. Francis Barreto And ANR

Suchitra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.1/2025 THE STATE OF GOA, THR.

POLICE INSPECTOR, CALANGUTE POLICE STATION ... APPLICANT

Versus

FRANCIS BARRETO AND ANR.

... RESPONDENTS Mr S. G. Bhobe, PP for the State.

Mr V. Amonkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr P. Sawaiker, Advocate for Respondent No.2 (VC).

CORAM:

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

DATED:

5th MAY 2025 P.C. :

1.

Heard. It is submitted by the learned PP that during the pendency of this application under Section 483(3) of BNSS for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.1, charge-sheet/FINAL Report came to be iled on 23.04.2025. Since the charge-sheet has now been iled, learned PP submits that the relief sought for cancellation of anticipatory bail, in this application may have worked out.

2.

However, learned PP submits that certain observations made in the impugned order may still be construed by the Trial Court, in the course of the trial or at the stage of framing charge to mean that the complaint does not make out a case for either

registering of FIR or framing charge against the accused. He draws my attention to the observations made by the Sessions Court in the impugned order in paragraph 13 which is quoted below:

"here was ample scope for the victim to step back from handing over money to the applicant. At this stage, the facts as it appears do not throw light on the ofence of cheating. It does not appear that the complainant was under the inluence of representation made by the applicant".

It is submitted that this observation was uncalled for as it would literally hold that there was no case made out for registering an FIR or maintaining a charge against the accused. 3.

Mr V. Amonkar, opposing this submission contended that the order has been correctly passed after appreciating all the facts and does not call for any interference.

4.

Considering that the charge-sheet has now been iled, no purpose would be served and there would be no cause for interference with the impugned order granting anticipatory bail; however, the anticipatory bail is required by law, to be granted based upon certain grounds, in my opinion the comment found at paragraph 13 of the impugned order is only uncalled for. Whether the victim could step back from handing more money to the accused for procuring a job or whether such an act by the complainant calls for interference, is not a consideration for grant

of anticipatory bail, and is de hors the record. Consequently, though the impugned order does not call for interference in the circumstances mentioned above, it is made clear that the observations made in paragraph 13 thereof shall not be referred to or called in use in any proceedings before the Court dealing with the complaint i.e. before the concerned Magistrate in Criminal Case No.179/C/2025/B.

5.

Mr P. Sawaiker appearing for the complainant (respondent no.2) submits that a reference has been made in the impugned order that the complaint was lodged on 05.07.2024, which according to respondent no.2 is factually incorrect and an endorsement of receipt is given of the complaint by the Police Station where the same is lodged.

6.

Be that as it may, this could be a matter that could be set straight during the course of the trial if the matter gets to that stage, and need not be addressed at this stage. In the event that the charge is framed, this will be pointed out by the complainant if he assists the prosecution in this matter. 7.

Considering the above, the application stands disposed of with the above observations.

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 06/05/2025 15:45:52