Court takes into account completion of investigation, period of custody and safeguards against witness interference
Mapusa, October 30, 2026: The Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, North Goa, Mapusa, has granted regular bail to three accused and interim anticipatory bail to three more in connection with Mandrem Police Station Crime No. 66/2026, arising from the alleged assault on advocate Ankur Kumar and his client, Anil Prabhakar Naik, at Temwada, Morjim, on July 17, 2026.
The case stems from an incident allegedly linked to the implementation of a demolition order passed by the Bombay High Court at Goa. According to the prosecution, the victims were restrained, assaulted and threatened, while the advocate’s vehicle was damaged. The prosecution further alleged that the victims were coerced into signing documents concerning pending litigation. An attempt-to-murder charge was subsequently added during the investigation.
The prosecution and the intervenors opposed the regular bail applications, relying on the gravity of the allegations, the injuries sustained by the complainant, the alleged use of weapons, outstanding recoveries, the non-apprehension of other suspected participants and the apprehension that the accused could interfere with witnesses or evidence.
In considering the regular bail applications, the Sessions Court examined the material on record, including medical evidence relating to the complainant’s injuries. The medical records referred to fractures of the inferior and medial walls of the right orbit, along with associated injuries. The Court observed that the nature and seriousness of an injury, in themselves, do not conclusively establish the intention or knowledge necessary to sustain an allegation of attempt to murder. The competing versions concerning the circumstances in which the injuries were sustained would require adjudication at trial.
The filing of the chargesheet and the stage of the investigation weighed in the Court’s assessment. In the proceedings concerning Dileep Loshan Mangesh Morje, Dhruva Loshan Morje and Deepika Tari, the Court noted that the applicants had spent nearly three months in custody. It observed that the non-recovery of certain alleged weapons and the fact that some co-accused remained unapprehended could not by themselves justify continued detention after the chargesheet had been filed.
The Court also considered the prosecution’s apprehension of witness intimidation and interference with evidence. In Dhruva Morje’s case, it noted that the prosecution had not demonstrated any specific post-incident conduct by the applicant indicating an attempt to threaten or influence the complainant or another witness. The absence of previous criminal antecedents was also taken into account.
The defence contended that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that the allegations, including the attempt-to-murder charge, would have to be established through evidence at trial. The prosecution and the intervenors, however, maintained that the seriousness of the alleged incident and the surrounding circumstances warranted the rejection of bail.
The Court directed the release of the two applicants on personal bonds of ₹50,000 each, with one local surety for a like amount, subject to conditions specified in the respective orders.
Meanwhile, three other accused in connection with the same crime, who had approached the Sessions Court by filing applications for anticipatory bail, have also been granted interim anticipatory bail by the Court, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the respective orders.
The conditions imposed in the regular bail orders restrain the applicants from contacting, threatening, inducing or influencing the complainant, the other victim or any person acquainted with the facts of the case. They are also prohibited from tampering with evidence or indulging in similar offences.
The bail conditions further require the applicants to obtain prior written permission from the jurisdictional court before leaving India and to provide prior written intimation to the Police Inspector of Colvale Police Station before leaving Goa. They must furnish their contact numbers and residential addresses to the Court within the stipulated period and report any subsequent changes. The sureties must satisfy the requirements prescribed in the respective orders.
Advocate Vinayak D. Porob appeared for the applicants, Public Prosecutor Sukesh Talawnekar represented the State and Advocate Gauresh Agni appeared for the intervenors.
