902-CRMAM-12-2025.DOC Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO.12/2025 COMMUNIDADE OF ASSAGAO, REP. BY ITS ATTORNEY NELSON J. FERNANDES … APPLICANT Versus STATE OF GOA, THR. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MAPUSA POLICE STATION AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS Mr S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms S. Kenny, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr S. G. Bhobe, PP for the State. Mr S. G. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr P. Sawant and Mr T. Rane, Advocates for Respondent No.2. CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 12th AUGUST 2025 P.C. : 1. he Registry to waive objections and register the matter. 2. Mr S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate submits that the anticipatory bail of accused/respondent no.2 has been granted on wrong considerations of law. He further submits that the Sessions Court, after rendering prima facie indings that the accused is involved in the crime, has nevertheless granted anticipatory bail. It is further his submission that this was a case to justify the rejection of anticipatory bail to the accused, since custodial interrogation was required in this matter, considering that the document in question which is the original certiied copy of the Deed of Sale of 1950, by which the accused claimed that the 12th August 2025 902-CRMAM-12-2025.DOC transfer was made of the property of the Communidade in favour of one Caetano Inacio through whom the accused claimed the property was required to be attached. He submits that till date, the said document has not been seized from the custody of the accused, and instead a charge-sheet has been iled to conduct investigation. 3. Learned PP states that the charge-sheet was iled on 02.08.2025 before the JMFC, Mapusa in Criminal Case No.IPC/273/S/2025/C and the matter would be now heard by the Special Court i.e. the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji. It was further submitted that if the investigating authorities are of the opinion that further investigation is called for, an appropriate proceeding may be instituted to seek such further investigation. 4. hough certain indings rendered by the Sessions Court may have otherwise justiied the rejection of the anticipatory bail, the fact remains that now the charge-sheet has been instituted before the appropriate Court which is seized of the matter. Considering this fact, the present application need not be entertained and it is dismissed. It is open for the applicant to seek its remedies, to the extent permissible at law, before the Sessions Court, which is seized of the charge-sheet. 5. he application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 12th August 2025 Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN SINGBAL Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 18/08/2025 11:04:45