Disposed¶7

The State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Calangute Police Station v. Francis Barreto and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025CRMAM/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of Goa v. Francis Barreto & Anr., Criminal Application (Main) No.1/2025, High Court of Bombay at Goa (Valmiki Menezes J., 05.05.2025): cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 483(3) BNSS rendered unnecessary by filing of charge-sheet on 23.04.2025; paragraph 13 observations of the Sessions Court order held uncalled for and de hors the record, barred from use before the Magistrate in Criminal Case No.179/C/2025/B; complaint-date discrepancy left to trial.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of without interference with the impugned order granting anticipatory bail; however, the observations in paragraph 13 of the impugned order are directed not to be referred to or called in use in any proceedings before the Magistrate in Criminal Case No.179/C/2025/B. ¶7

The State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Calangute Police… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.1 should be cancelled under Section 483(3) of BNSS on the State's application. +2 more

¶1

Court's answer

Since the charge-sheet has been filed during the pendency of the application, no purpose would be served and there is no cause for interference with the impugned order granting anticipatory bail; the relief sought for cancellation has worked out.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The comment found at paragraph 13 of the impugned order is only uncalled for.

¶4

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶4
It is made clear that the observations made in paragraph 13 of the impugned order 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.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — cancellation under Section 483(3) BNSS sought by the State against respondent no.1 — during pendency, charge-sheet/Final Report filed on 23.04.2025 — held, no purpose would be served and no cause for interference with the Sessions Court order granting anticipatory bail; application disposed of — however, the comment in paragraph 13 of the impugned order (ample scope for the victim to step back from handing over money; facts do not throw light on the offence of cheating; complainant not under influence of the representation) held uncalled for — whether the victim could step back from handing more money to the accused for procuring a job is not a consideration for grant of anticipatory bail and is de hors the record — paragraph 13 observations directed not to be referred to or called in use in any proceedings before the Magistrate in Criminal Case No.179/C/2025/B — dispute as to the recorded date of lodging of the complaint (05.07.2024) left to be set straight at trial.

¶1

33-CRMAM-1-25.DOC

¶2

Suchitra

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.1/2025

¶5

THE STATE OF GOA, THR. POLICE INSPECTOR, CALANGUTE POLICE STATION

¶6

… APPLICANT

¶7

Versus

¶8

FRANCIS BARRETO AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS

¶9

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).

¶10

CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶11

DATED: 5^th MAY 2025

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Page 1 of 3 5^th May 2025

¶16

33-CRMAM-1-25.DOC

¶17

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:

¶18

“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”.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Page 2 of 3 5^th May 2025

¶23

33-CRMAM-1-25.DOC

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶29

Page 3 of 3 5^th May 2025

¶30

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

The State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Calangute Police Station v. Francis Barreto and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector, Calangute Police Station v. Francis Barreto and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mayuresh C. Gawas Vs Nkb Express Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Director Suraj Shivaji Singh

Mateus Victor De Souza Vs Annie Soares

Yasin Arafad Naik Rep. by Natural Guardian Shaikh Mohamad Salim and 3 Ors. vs Gosai Moda Nazari and 2 Ors.

Leticia Ameliana Braganza Vs Joao Sebastiao Zezito Da Purificacao Pires Lobo Also Known as Zezito Lobo

Mary Jayne Vs Evelyn Richard Dsouza @ Evelyn Pinheiro and Anr.

Cypriano Santan Pinheiro Vs Sindija Svintecka Alias Sindija Pinheiro