Andreza IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO. 51 OF 2026 Sairaj Govekar … Applicant Versus State of Goa thr Public Prosecutor & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Shivam Fadte, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State. CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORDER 1. The Applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 125 of 2025, registered with Panaji Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 126(1), 109, 351(3), 238, 111 and 3(5) read with Section 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’) and Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 2. The investigation was set on motion on the basis of the information given by one Soiru Velip @ Molu, alleging that on 18.09.2025 at around 12.55 hours, unknown accused persons with their common object, wrongfully restrained the victim namely Rama 30thSeptember 2026 Kankonkar and assaulted him with deadly weapons thereby attempting to commit his murder and threatened him dire consequences by showing knife. The aforesaid information was culminated into registration of Crime No. 125 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025, for offence punishable under Section 126(2), 109 and 351(3) read with Section 61 of BNS. 3. During course of investigation, a panchanama was drawn. The statements of witnesses were recorded. CCTV footage was connected and identity of accused persons was established. The Applicant has been arrested on 19.09.2025 and since then he is behind bars. On completion of investigation, chargesheet has been filed. At present, the Special Criminal Case No. (ST/SC)/3/2025 is pending trial before Sessions Judge, North Goa. The Applicant moved application for bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court vide Order 12.06.2026, rejected the application. 4. Mr. Fadte, learned Advocate appearing for Applicant, submitted that no specific role has been attributed against the Applicant in commission of offence. The injuries suffered by the victim are simple in nature and there is nothing to draw inference that accused persons had intention to kill the victim. The Applicant is behind bars for more than one year. The trial is not likely to commence in recent future. The 30thSeptember 2026 charge is yet to be framed. The interest of prosecution can be protected by imposing necessary conditions. Mr. Fadte further submits that this court has already granted bail to Accused No.1 and on account of parity, applicant also demands enlargement on bail. 5. Per contra, Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed application. A perusal of investigation papers suggests that presence of Applicant at the spot of incident is discernible from CCTV footage and identification parade. As per intel received by investigation team, they visited Mapusa and applicant was apprehended therein. Upon investigation, it was disclosed that he along with one another had assisted the accused persons. The Scooter used in commission of offence was parked at residence of applicant and mobile phones of applicant and Suresh Naik (accused no.1) were kept in dicky of scooter. 6. A perusal of the injury certificate of victim suggests he suffered grievous injuries, but X-ray reports are normal. Applicant is not alleged any role in assault to victim. His presence with other accused is not discernible from investigation papers. No deadly weapon appears to have been used in commission of crime. Since till date charge is not framed, there is no possibility of commencement and conclusion of trail in recent future. The Applicant cannot be detained as under trial 30thSeptember 2026 prisoner any more looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the victim and role attributed to him. The Applicant is languishing behind bars for more than one year. The incarceration of under trial accused for indefinite period in violation of right to speedy trial, requires consideration in facts of present case. Hence, case is made out to grant bail. 7. Although criminal antecedents of applicant are brought on record, there is nothing to show that he is convicted for any of the offence. Further, having regard to the nature of role attributed to Applicant in commission of offence and nature of injuries sustained by the victim, bail cannot be refused only looking to alleged criminal antecedents. 8. In result, bail application is allowed. Hence, the following Order: i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ with one or two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Police Station; ii) The Applicant shall also attend each and every date before Trial Court unless specifically exempted; iii) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the victim, witnesses or any person 30thSeptember 2026 concerned with the case; iv) If the Applicant is a holder of passport, he shall deposit the same, if not already deposited, with the Police Station concerned; v) The Applicant shall not leave India, without the permission of concerned Police Station; vi) The Applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and contact number immediately after being released and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Investigating Officer of the Police Station concerned; vii) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail. 9. Application is allowed in above terms and is accordingly disposed of. 10. It is made clear that observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application. S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. 30thSeptember 2026 Signed by: ANDREZA PEREIRA Designation: Senior Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Judge Date: 01/10/2026 10:36:50