The Additional Sessions Court Mapusa declined to cancel the bail of respondents Mr. Mohammed Fahim and Mr. Yusuf Thoramakki who were booked by the Porvorim Police under section 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC upon a written complaint filed by Mr. Antonio Silveira who is the brother of Ex MLA to the effect that both the respondents with their common intention induced him to deliver fish worth Rs. 1,24,48,525/- and further failed to make payment and thereby cheated him.
The Police attached to Porvorim Police Station had filed for the Cancellation of Respondents bail application on grounds that they were not found at the local address that they had furnished to the police at the time of securing their bail.
As per one of the conditions while securing anticipatory bail “the respondents therein were required to furnish their addresses of their residence in Goa along with their native address, However upon enquiry with the owner of the said flat/apartment it was revealed that the respondents were not residing at the above address and had left his premises without any information. The owner also stated that he was not informed by the respondents about his address being given as place of stay in Goa to the police,” the Prosecution argued.
Advocate Myron Araujo representing both the respondents argued that “The respondents have already submitted their permanent native place address to which Investigation Officer has also verified the said address and that the respondents have also given their mobile numbers to the Investigation Officer and the Investigation Officer has been calling the respondents at the Police Station on phone for the purpose of investigation and the respondents have till date co-operated with the investigation of the alleged crime and therefore no prejudice is being caused to the State as investigation has not been hampered on account of non furnishing of new local address of the respondents”.
Advocate Myron Araujo further submitted that the owner wanted the said flat for his personal occupation and therefore requested the respondents to vacate the said premises and accordingly the respondents vacated the same and after vacating the said premises the respondents have now secured another premises and were in the process of submitting the details of the new address to the Investigating Officer, however the respondents were served with the Applications for cancellation of Bail Granted to the respondents and hence prayed that both the applications filed for cancellation of bail applications filed by the State be dismissed.
“The IO (Investigating Officer) has submitted his report verifying that the address now mentioned in the reply by the respondents is correct and genuine and that this address is used by the respondents for local stay and communication. Considering that the respondents has now furnished residential address in Goa which is duly verified by IO and found to be correct, there is no case made out for cancellation of bail of the respondents. Viewed thus, the application stands dismissed,” Additional Sessions Judge Sharmila Patil, ruled.
Loading ...
