25) In his say, PI Parab contends that the statements of the

legal heirs of Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh Madival were recorded,

according to which the said Laxmibai was their great

grandmother. However, by his own say, PI Parab admitted that

the so-called heirs of Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh Madival did not

have any document to show that said Laxmibai is their great

grand mother nor were they able to produce her death

certificate or that of her husband.

26) In his say, the 10 also confirmed from IDBI Bank, Vasco

that the two cheques were not deposited by said Laxmibai.

Similarly, the 10 confirmed the fact that the Applicant had sworn

an affidavit regarding cash of T19,68,000/- paid to Mrs. Laxmibai

Ganesh Madival and that an T6,68,000/- was returned to the

Applicant by said Laxmibai, by relying on the same affidavit

of the Applicant made to the Income Tax Authorities.

27) However, the 10 contends that the address in the power

of attorney of said Laxmibai was shown as "9/18, Mudran

Kamgarnagar, near Four Bungalows, Andheri (West), Mumbai,

400053," was fake. When PSI Laxi Amonkar had gone to

Mumbai, it was found that said Mudran Kamgarnagar was a

government colony of the Department of Printing and

Stationary, Government of Maharashtra, was being

redeveloped and was no longer in existence. The information

obtained from the Office of the Director, Printing and

Stationary Department, Charni Road, Mumbai vide letter dated

01.03.2020 indicated that the addressed "9/18, Mudran

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 11 of 47
Kamgarnagar" was not in existence. Hence, PI Parab concluded

that the address in the power of attorney was fake.

 28) The 10 claims that Francy Gonsalves was absconding

since the commission of the crime and had surrendered only

on 27.09.2021 after his Anticipatory Bail Application was rejected

by the Hon'ble High Court and he was arrested by the Crime

Branch, Ribandar. The 10 claims that said Francy Gonsalves

has confessed to having prepared the fake power of

attorney with the help of one person from Cansarvornem

who produced one lady to impersonate Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh

Madival and to identify her as a witness. Hence, the said

person Umesh Gad was interrogated by Crime Branch and he

claims that he was threatened by the Applicant and Francy

Gonsalves that he would be arrested for his role in the offence.

He that claims out to fear of this threat, Umesh Gad had earlier

not disclosed the truth but only after the arrest of Francy

Gonsalves he gained confidence. Accordingly, statement of said

Umesh Gad and of the lady who was made to impersonate

Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh Madival, were recorded.

29) PI Parab further stated that Francy Gonsalves confessed

that the original power of attorney was with the Applicant but

when the Applicant was summoned under Section 41A Cr.P.C.

on 02.10.2021, he failed to appear at the Police Station. Hence,

it was prayed that the application be rejected as the police need

the custodial interrogation of the Applicant to confront Francy

Gonsalves in custody.

30) Notably on page 9, unnumbered para 2, the 10 has

stated that the remand of Francy Gonsalves was expiring on

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 12 of 47

05.10.2021 and that he was remanded to 14 days JC. It was

contended that further police custody of Francy Gonsalves

would be required after arrest of

the Applicant herein. Ld. Adv. Costa Frias submitted that it was not

known how an accused remanded to judicial custody after the period

for his police custody has already expired, could be taken into police

custody again. In any event, this could most certainly not be a ground

to reject the application for anticipatory bail.

31) Justifying the need for custodial interrogation of

the

Applicant, the 10 has stated that the witness Umesh Gad has

acted on the directions of Francy Gonsalves and was

pressurized because he owed Francy Gonsalves money. The

investigation revealed that address in the power of attorney

of Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh Madival was fake. The cash

transactions, stated by the Applicant in his affidavit to the

Income Tax Authority, needed to be investigated and since the

affidavit is contrary to the sale deed, the role of the Applicant in

the conspiracy needed to be investigated. The cheques

issued by the Applicant to Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh Madival

were required to be recovered from the Applicant as well as

the original power of attorney and the sale deed. The

compensation of 49,83,709/- which the Applicant

fraudulently received from the Special Land Acquisition

Officer was to be traced. However, despite ample opportunity

given by the Pernem Police Station and subsequently, by the

Crime Branch, the Applicant has not co-operated with

investigation and was instead, misleading the investigation.

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 13 of 47

32) After perusing the application, the documents

produced on

record, the say of the 10 and the case diary including the case

papers of the investigation, on 06.10.2021, since it was found

that that the

custody of the Applicant was required to obtain certain documents

such as the original power of attorney and the statements of account

to trace the compensation amount, an Interim Order was passed below

exhibit 1, with specific directions to the 10 to issue a notice under

section 91 Cr.P.C. requiring the Applicant to produce documents

required for the purpose of investigation. The aforesaid Order was

passed because, in his say at exhibit 3, the 10 claimed that the

Applicant was not co-operating with the investigation and was

misleading the investigation. Yet, he admitted across the bar that, till

that day, no notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. was ever issued to the

Applicant in the course of the investigations.

33) On that day, after hearing Ld. PP Barreto and Ld. Adv. Costa

Frias as well as the 10 Police Inspector Parab, since the 10 was unable

to satisfy the Court about the need for custodial interrogation, the

Applicant was directed to comply with any such notice for production

of documents issued by the 10 and interim relief from arrest was

granted with directions to the Applicant to report to the Crime Branch,

Ribandar from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for five days. Ld. Adv. Costa

Frias also made a statement across the bar that the Applicant would

abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and was willing to report

as directed and produce documents demanded by the police in

connection with the investigation. Hence, the interim relief on that day

was granted pending compliance report from the 10.

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 14 of 47

 34) Today, Ld. Adv. Costa Frias has placed on record a

notice issued to the Applicant by the 10 and submitted that the

original power of attorney, financial statements and certain

other documents, except the cheques which were returned by

Laxmibai were already handed over to the 10.

35) On 06.10.2021 itself the 10 was also asked for

documentary evidence in support of the FIR wherein it was

claimed that Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh Madival had expired prior

to the Liberation of Goa. However, the 10 was unable to produce

any such documents.

36) From the case papers, it was also revealed in the

statements of the so-called heirs of Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh

Madival that they had filed a complaint with Pernem PS way back

in 2014. When PI Parab was asked about status of the

complaint, he was unable to provide any answers contending

that case was being investigated by the Pernem PS.

Admittedly, as on 06.10.2021, apart from the "confession" of

Francy Gonsalves in police custody and the statements of

Umesh Gad, who himself was an accused, being part of the

"conspiracy" to get one lady to falsely impersonate said

Laxmibai, there was no material available demanding

custodial interrogation of the Applicant by the Respondent.

37) Even upon perusal of the statement of the said lady who

had impersonated Mrs. Laxmibai Ganesh Madival and of Umesh

Gad, who had identified her as a witness, they claim to have

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 15 of 47

"gained confidence" only upon arrest of Francy Gonsalves.

When the 10 was asked what

action was taken against these perpetrators, Ld. PP Barreto submitted

that they were lay persons who were manipulated by the Applicant and

Francy Gonsalves as the latter had some dealings and was owed

money. Mr. Barreto submitted that their statements have been

recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C. and they have

been made witnesses against the Applicant.

38) On 12.10.2021, the 10 PI Parab, vide exhibit 4, file

his additional say admitting that the Applicant had reported for

five days and produced documents as directed. Interestingly,

the 10 claims that the Applicant was not co-operating with the

investigation "continued to give same answers which he is giving

to the Investigating agency since registration of this case thereby

misleading the facts." The 10 claimed that the Applicant was not

disclosing details of the conspiracy or the involvement of role of

other accused including Government servants named in the

FIR. It was, therefore, reiterated that his custodial

interrogation was necessary to take the case to logical

conclusion and to collect all the material evidence and

complete investigation of the case.

39) It is worth mentioning at this stage that when PI Parab

was asked about what action was taken against the co-

accused besides Francy Gonsalves, especially the then

Mamlatdar of Pernem and the then Sub-Registrar of Pernem,

Mr. Parab was non-committal and gave a vague reply stating

that investigations in that respect were in progress. Today in

the course of arguments, Ld. PP Barreto submitted

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 16 of 47

that the custodial detention of the Applicant was required to elicit from

him the role which the Government servants played in the conspiracy.

40) Perusal of the case papers indicated that the

statement of the then Sub-Registrar Ms. Nandini N. Alornacar

was recorded but no efforts were made to exact from her the

details of her involvement in this case. It is not understood

how, without initiating any action against the co-accused, the

Applicant is supposed to disclose the details of the conspiracy

hatched and involvement of those co-accused including

Government servants mentioned in the FIR. The additional say

vaguely states that the Applicant "is giving same answers"

without any way indicating what was those vague answers.

41) The 10 has relied upon State Rep. By CBI v/s Anil

Sharma (1997) 7 SCC 187), Dukhishyam Benupani v/s

Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52 and Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of Maharashtra

(2020) 10 SCC 118 along with his additional say.

42) In Anil Sharma (supra) it was held that

custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation

oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with

a favourable order under section 438 of the Code. Effective

interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous

advantage in disintering many useful informations and also

materials which would have been concealed. Succession such

interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 17 of 47

well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during

the time he
interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce

to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is

fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree

methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be

advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to

presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in

task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as

offenders.

43) Dukhishyam Benupani (supra) was relied upon

apparently to reiterate the position stated in Anil Sharma

(supra) that a blanket order fully insulating a person from

arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual. The

Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had directed the respondent

therein to report to a particular officer of the Enforcement

Directorate at a particular time, days and date and had

directed that he may not be arrested till the disposal of his

application.

44) In Neeharika infrastructure (supra), pending

decision on the petition for quashing the FIR therein under section

482 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble High Court passed a blanket order that

"no coercive measures to be adopted/taken against the

original accused," although an order of interim protection

from arrest was granted by the Session Court below and which

was extended from time to time. It was held that it is the

statutory right and even the duty of the police to investigate

into the cognizable offence and collect the evidence during the

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 18 of 47

course of investigation. There may be requirement of a

custodial investigation for which the accused is required to

be in police custody (popularly

known as remand). Therefore, passing such type of blanket interim

orders without assigning reasons, of not to arrest and/or "no coercive

steps" would hamper the investigation and may affect the statutory

right/duty of the police to investigate the cognizable offence conferred

under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

45) Coming to the last case law first, I find that the blanket

order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court while deciding a

petition for quashing the FIR under section 482 Cr.P.C. read

with Art. 226 of the Constitution. On this count itself,

Neeharika infrastructure (supra), can be distinguished on

facts, although the point of law of not passing blanket Orders is

duly noted.

46) That apart, Anil Sharma (supra) and

Dukhishyam Benupani (supra) can be distinguished on

facts from the case at hand.

47) In the first case, the Respondent was a former Minister of

the Himachal Pradesh State Government and he held the office

for about three years. Besides that, he was a member of

the Legislative Assembly of that State also. His father Sukram

was Union Minister for Telecommunications. CBI has been

investigating a case against him for offence under section 13 of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a disproportionate

assets case. This is not the position in this case, where, as

stated by the Applicant, he is not a person wielding clout,

either political or otherwise.

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 19 of 47

 48) In the latter case, the respondent was wanted

for interrogation under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act

(FERA) and was earlier in a serious case of FERA violation

involving a whopping sum of 37 crores of rupees. Besides, the

City Sessions Court therein had ignored the fact that the High

Court of Calcutta had repeatedly refused to grant the

respondent relief despite different motions made by him. In

the case at hand, the Applicant had earlier moved for

Anticipatory Bail before my Ld. Predecessor way back in 2018

itself but was granted leave to file fresh at the relevant stage

because the investigations were apparently in preliminary

stages as per the say of the then 10. Even his Criminal Writ

Petition No.229/2019 for quashing the FIR No.11/2018, was

allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition when

a fresh cause of action accrued to him.

49) In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State

o f Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 312: (2011) 1 SCC

694, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High

Court refusing anticipatory bail to the appellant and

reiterated its position on the grant of anticipatory bail

relying on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v/s State of Punjab,

(1980) 2 SCC 565. It was held that custodial interrogation

should be avoided in a case where the accused has joined

the investigation, willing to cooperate and there is no likelihood

of his fleeing away from trial. The Court further clarified that the

power under Section 438 is not extraordinary to mean that it

should be exercised only in extraordinary or rare cases. The

ABA No.272/2021 CNR No.GANG01-001340-2021 20 of 47

appellant was granted bail with the direction to join the

investigation and fully cooperate with the investigation

agency.