1. The Applicant seeks his release on bail in connection with FIR No.191/2020 registered at Margao Town Police Station on 2nd September 2020, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 398, 201 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. There are in all six accused, out of which three accused are on bail. The Applicant is Accused No.1.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint was filed by Smt. Nivedita Walke, stating that an unknown person entered the shop of the victim, 'Krishni Jewellers', suddenly fired a gunshot and stabbed the victim. He then escaped from the place with the help of another person who was standing outside. The victim, when shifted to Hospicio Hospital, Margao, was declared dead. During the course of the interrogation, it transpired that the accused persons, namely, Mustafa Shaikh, Evender Rodrigues and the Applicant, who were childhood friends, have criminal records since 2014 and are actively involved in housebreaking, thefts, and cheating. Mustafa Shaikh is involved in the murder case. There are 10 antecedents against the present Applicant, out of which the Applicant is acquitted in nine cases, and in one case, the trial is underway.

4. On the day of the incident, i.e., on 2nd September 2020, the Applicant, along with his associates, hatched a criminal conspiracy and murdered the victim. However, they could not loot the shop as the victim fought till the last breath. Thereafter, the Applicant and his associates succeeded in fleeing the scene on the Applicant's Jupiter scooter and the Co-accused Mustafa Shaikh's Dio scooter.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that a few days prior to the commission of the offence, the Applicant and his associates had visited the victim's shop, and one of them, pretending to be a customer, had entered the shop to view the interior of the shop.

6. On the date of the incident, i.e. on 2nd September 2020, the Applicant, along with his associates, went into the shop and fired bullets at the victim. Upon a complaint filed by the deceased's wife, an FIR was registered.

7. The Applicant had filed seven successive bail applications, including one before this Court. However, all his previous bail applications were rejected. Hence, he is before this Court for his release on bail by the present application.

8. Mr R. Menezes, learned counsel, represented the Applicant, and Mr S. Karpe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, represented the State.

9. Mr Menezes submitted that there is no direct evidence against the present Applicant involving the present crime. There is no CCTV footage showing the Applicant at the crime scene. He further submits that the Applicant is falsely implicated in the alleged offence and that he is not involved in the entire conspiracy leading to the present incident. He further submits that, out of 10 antecedents, he has been acquitted in 9 cases, and there is only 1 case pending, the trial of which is underway. He submits that the Applicant has been incarcerated since September 2020, and that the prosecution intends to examine as many as 113 witnesses, of whom only seven have been examined to date. In these circumstances, he submits that it is highly unlikely that the trial would conclude in near foreseeable future. Hence, he prays that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.

10. Mr Karpe, on the other hand, submits that the post-mortem report of the deceased's body shows that there are 21 injuries, including entry and exit gunshot wounds and knife stab, abrasion and bruises. The knife was also recovered at the instance of the present Applicant, and the Bolero car was also found parked in front of Krishni Jewellers. Mr Karpe further submits that there are eye-witnesses as well, who have stated regarding the Applicant's earlier visit to the shop. Mr Karpe also points out that the Applicant escaped from judicial custody in 2017 by breaking the lock-up at the Anjuna Police Station, and that there is one case pending in this regard as well. Mr Karpe submits that this is a premeditated crime, and the Applicant is a habitual offender and two key witnesses, namely, the barber and juice vendor, have to be examined as yet. He submits that these two witnesses are likely to be intimidated if the Applicant is enlarged on bail. On this and other grounds, Mr Karpe contests the bail application.

11. I have heard both the learned counsels for the respective parties and have perused the papers with their assistance.

12. A plain reading of the charge-sheet and the reply placed on record by the police indicates that the role attributed to the present Applicant is that of an accomplice and co-conspirator. However, it is the Co-accused, Mustafa Shaikh, who actually entered the jewellery shop. Evender Rodrigues, Co-accused, was standing outside the jeweller's shop, and the Applicant was alleged to have been standing across the road. Undoubtedly, there is some material showing that all three accused were staying in the rented room at Miramar, where, according to the prosecution, the conspiracy was hatched. However, apart from the disclosure statement pursuant to which the Jupiter scooter belonging to the Applicant was recovered and the licence plate of the Bolero car was changed, substituted and fixed on the Jupiter scooter, there is no material to directly connect the present Applicant to the crime. The investigation also threw light on evidence that points directly to the other Co-accused, namely, Mustafa Shaikh and Evender Rodrigues. However, insofar as the present Applicant is concerned, although it appears that he was an accomplice who was present when the conspiracy to loot the jewellery shop was hatched, at this stage, the role attributed to him is less in degree than that of the other co-accused.

13. Be that as it may, there are 113 witnesses cited by the prosecution, out of which only seven witnesses have been examined.

14. Mr Karpe is at pains to point out that two key witnesses, i.e., the juice vendor and the barber, who are to be examined in the next two to three months, are likely to be intimidated by the release of the present Applicant. However, considering that the Applicant has already suffered six years of incarceration and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near foreseeable future, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail on stringent conditions, and it is ordered as under: -

                    i) The Applicant be enlarged on bail, on executing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned Sessions Court;

                    ii) The Applicant shall attend the Trial Court concerned on each and every date unless exempted by the orders of the Trial Court concerned;

                    iii) The Applicant shall attend the Police Station as and when the Investigating Officer requires him so to do;

                    iv) If the Applicant holds a passport, he shall deposit the same with the Police Station concerned;

                    v) Since the witnesses are residents of Goa, the Applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of Goa without the prior permission of the Trial Court, save, except to attend the trial and attend the police station concerned, if the investigation officer so requires;

                    vi) The Applicant shall not leave India without the permission of the Trial Court;

                    vii) The Applicant shall not tamper or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;

                    viii) 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 Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the Police Station concerned;

                    ix) The Applicant to co-operate with the conduct of the trial:

                    x) Any infraction of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

15. Application is allowed on the above terms and is accordingly disposed of.

16. It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this Application, and the learned Trial Judge is to decide the case on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made herein.