Allowed

Atul Ashok Bicholkar., v. the State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station, Vasco.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2017CRMAB/242/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a pre-arrest application concerning charges of indecent gestures under Section 509 IPC and the Goa Children's Act, dismissing the necessity for immediate custodial interrogation pending a test identification parade.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on securing a bond of Rs. 15,000 with one solvent surety, subject to attending the identification parade and not influencing witnesses.

Atul Ashok Bicholkar., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Police… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶2

CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 242 OF 2016

¶3

ATUL ASHOK BICHOLKAR., ... Applicant Versus THE STATE OF GOA, THR. POLICE INSPECTOR, VASCO POLICE STATION, VASCO., ... Respondent

¶4

Mr. Ryan Da Piedade Menezes with Ms. Akshata Arondekar and Ms. Catarina Ribeiro, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. P. Faldessai, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

¶5

Coram:C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶6

Date:10th January, 2017

¶7

P.C:

¶8

Leave to correct the crime number granted. Necessary correction to be carried out forthwith.

¶9

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail. The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with investigation of Crime No.81/2016 of P.S. Vasco, registered under Section 509 of IPC and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act. According to the prosecution, on 18.10.2016 at about 14:30 hours, the applicant made some indecent/vulgar gestures to the minor daughter of the complainant and chased her on motor cycle.

¶10

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, from the investigating officer, who is present before the Court, states that the presence of the applicant is necessary for

¶11

CRMAB/242/2016

¶12

¶13

conducting a test identification parade. It is submitted that the investigating officer could not conduct the identification parade as the applicant is under treatment.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the applicant, on instructions, states that the applicant will attend the test identification parade as per the directions of the investigating officer.

¶15

In such circumstances, I do not find that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. In the result, the application is disposed of in the following terms:

¶16

(a) In the event of arrest, in connection with investigation of Crime No.81/2016 of P.S. Vasco, the applicant shall be released on bail, on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶17

(b) The applicant shall attend the identification parade on the date and place as directed by the investigating officer and shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶18

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly influence the prosecution witness and shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶19

(d) The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶20

C. V. BHADANG, J.

¶21

Atul Ashok Bicholkar., v. the State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station, Vasco.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Ashok Bicholkar., v. the State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station, Vasco.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Maria Joaquina De Costa (Expired) through Lr'S Vs Mrs. Surekha Pundalik Parkar and 4 Ors.

Mr. Fernando A.J.F. S. Santana De Rosario Abranches @ Fernando Abranches (Dec) Thr. His Lrs., Vs Mr. Hipolito D'Costa and 5 Ors.

M/S. Bella Vista Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Managing Director, Ms. Annabelle Pereira., Vs M/S. Edc Ltd., Thr. Its Managing Director and Anr.

Shri Nitin Yeshwant Patekar. Vs Village Panchayat Dhargal, Thr. Its Sarpanch and 5 Ors.

Belarmin Fernandes and Anr., Vs Roque Philip Fernandes and 7 Ors.

Mr. Rajendra @ Raj Biliye., Vs Mr. Atish Lotlikar and Anr.