Bombay High Court
MALCUM AGNELO PEREIRAversusSTATE OF GOA THR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The Court confirmed the grant of pre‑arrest bail, finding no prima facie intention to deter a public servant and noting the applicant’s compliance with conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Mr. Malcum Agnelo Pereira, was charged under Section 121(1) of the Goa BNS Act, 2023 for allegedly assaulting a village Sarpanch during a dispute over market‑fee (Sopo) collection. The incident involved the applicant pushing the informant down stairs, kicking him and attempting to strike him with a stone, resulting in simple injuries. The applicant sought pre‑arrest bail, arguing that the dispute was contractual, he had cooperated with the investigation, and there was no intent to deter a public servant. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the assault, the applicant’s prior antecedents and the need for custodial interrogation. The Court held that the allegations, on a prima facie basis, did not show the requisite intent to prevent a public servant from performing duties, the applicant had complied with interim bail conditions, and prior cases were unrelated; consequently, the pre‑arrest bail was confirmed with strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case of alleged assault under Section 121(1) of the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the necessity of custodial interrogation defeats the grant of pre‑arrest bail.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
- Whether the alleged act demonstrates an intention to deter a public servant from discharging his duty.
Legislation cited
- Bombay Narcotic (Goa) Act — s. 121(1), 35(3)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 121(1) BNS
- assault
- public servant
- custodial interrogation
- prior antecedents
- bail conditions
- market fee dispute
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1958
(1) crmab-48-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.48 OF 2026
MR. MALCUM AGNELO PEREIRA
VERSUS
STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER
…
Mr. Vibhav Amonkar with Mr. Raj Chodankar, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Somnath Karpe, Additional Public Prosecutor with Ms. Samiksha
Vaigankar, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for Victim.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 01st OCTOBER, 2026.
FINAL ORDER:-
1. The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime
No.47/2026 dated 07.09.2026 registered with Cuncolim Police Station,
South Goa for offence punishable under Section 121(1) of BNS, 2023.
2. The investigation was set in motion based on information given
by Gerson S/o Antonio Joao Gomes stating that he is Sarpanch of
village panchayat Chinchinim. The applicant was given Sopo
Collection contract for year 2026-2027 within jurisdiction of said
village panchayat. The applicant/accused had paid Rs.7,10,000/- and
balance amount was due on him.
On 28.08.2026, Block Development Officer had called meeting of
panchayat to discuss Sopo collection issue, suddenly he became
aggressive and attempted to assault informant.
On 31.08.2026, panchayat body resolved that applicant should
collect Sopo as per Government Gazetted rates. On 07.09.2026,
(2) crmab-48-2026.odt
Secretary of panchayat called informant to panchayat office as vendors
from village fair wanted to meet him regarding Sopo rates. At around
13.30 hrs. he reached panchayat office. At that time, applicant walked
into his cabin and started recording video on phone demanding answer
about Sopo collection. While informant was leaving panchayat office,
applicant came from behind and pushed him from stairs. The informant
fell down stairs. Thereafter, applicant kicked informant on his chest and
head. After hearing commotion, panchayat members and vendors
rescued informant. The applicant continued arguing with informant.
The applicant picked up stone with intention to hit informant, however,
panchayat members rescued him and call was given to police station.
Thereafter, he was shifted to hospital.
3. The aforesaid information culminated into registration of Crime
No.47/2026 for offence punishable under Section 121(1) of BNS, 2023.
4. Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned Advocate appearing for applicant
submits that Major Church Fair was scheduled from September 13 to
September 24, 2026. The local vendors refused to pay market/festival
fees (Sopo Collection), as panchayat has not officially communicated
rates to Church Fabrica. The applicant had agreement with panchayat
for Sopo Collection for total sum of Rs.14,20,000/-. The applicant had
deposited amount of Rs.7,10,000/- towards first installment with
panchayat. On 31.08.2026, applicant had visited panchayat office to
(3) crmab-48-2026.odt
clear matter. There was verbal altercation between applicant and
informant-Sarpanch, which turned into physical scuffle. The applicant
as well as informant had suffered injuries.
5. On registration of Crime No.47/2026 applicant was served with
notice under Section 35(3) of BNS, 2023. The applicant responded to
said notice and co-operated with investigation. The applicant has been
falsely implicated in said crime giving false version of incident. The
applicant was granted interim protection of pre-arrest bail, he has abided
with conditions. His custodial interrogation would not be necessary.
Accordingly, it is urged that interim protection of pre-arrest bail may be
confirmed.
6. Per contra, Mr. Karpe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for respondent/State vehemently opposes pre-arrest bail
application. He points out that incident is not disputed by applicant.
The informant has received injuries. The applicant has repeatedly
attacked informant-Sarpanch. Had Panchayat members not rescued
informant, his life would have been in danger. There are criminal
antecedents at discredit of applicant. His custodial interrogation would
be necessary to establish motive behind offence and confront applicant
with material collected during investigation. The applicant has given
threat to family of informant. His release would hamper fair
investigation and trial. He submits that requirement of custodial
(4) crmab-48-2026.odt
interrogation itself is not criteria to grant anticipatory bail, although it
may be one of the relevant aspect to be considered. There is, prima
facie, case against applicant. The offence is serious in nature. Hence,
applicant is not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. In support of his
contentions, he relies upon observations of Supreme Court in case of
Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and Another1.
7. Mr. Ryan Menezes, learned Advocate appearing for victim
reiterates contentions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
8. There cannot be contest that grant of pre-arrest bail stands on
different footing than grant of regular bail. The Court has to consider
nature of offence, punishment prescribed therefor, and interest of fair
and proper investigation. The requirement of custodial interrogation
would also be an important factor to be considered while deciding
application for pre-arrest bail. In present case, FIR has been registered
for offence punishable under Section 121(1) of BNS, 2023, which
prescribes maximum punishment upto five years or fine or both. The
offence can be made out once it is established that public servant is
subjected to voluntarily hurt with intent to prevent or deter him from
discharging his duty as such public servant.
9. The contents of FIR depicts that applicant had entered into
contract regarding collection of market/festival fees and he has
1 (2022) 7 SCC 391.
(5) crmab-48-2026.odt
deposited amount of Rs.7,10,000/- with panchayat against right to
collect market/festival fees. The dispute occurred as regards to rates of
collection of market fees. It was for panchayat to clarify the same.
Several meetings were conducted to resolve controversy. In such a
meeting scuffle took place. The material on record indicates that
informant as well as applicant suffered injuries, although crime is
registered against applicant on complaint of informant Sarpanch.
10. The hurt certificate depicts that informant suffered simple
injuries. No weapon was used. The allegation is about assault by fist
and kick blows.
11. Upon registration of offence, applicant was served with notice
under Section 35(3) of BNS, 2023. In response to notice, he attended
Police Station, surrendered his mobile phone, wherein incident has been
recorded. Although it is claimed on behalf of prosecution that applicant
failed to co-operate in investigation, no specific incidence of non-
cooperation is brought on record. The reasons given in support of
custodial interrogation are fallacious. The inception of incident is in
contractual dispute. The possibility of incorporating exaggerated
version of incident cannot be ruled out. Whether act of applicant was
with intention to deter informant from performing his official duties will
have to be examined during course of trial, but on prima facie
consideration, no such intention is discernible from allegations made in
(6) crmab-48-2026.odt
complaint. It is confirmed during investigation that applicant has
suffered injuries in scuffle for which there is no explanation in FIR or
investigation papers.
12. Although there are five antecedents, those are not pertaining to
similar offences and none of such prosecution ended with conviction.
13. By order dated 11.09.2026, this Court granted interim protection
of pre-arrest bail to applicant by incorporating conditions. There is no
complaint of breach of any condition. Hence, following order:
ORDER
a. Criminal Miscellaneous Application (Bail) is allowed.
b. The interim protection of pre-arrest bail granted to applicant by
this Court vide order dated 11.09.2026 in connection with Crime
No.47/2026 dated 07.09.2026 for offence punishable under Section
121(1) of BNS, 2023 is confirmed.
c. In the event of arrest, applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing
PR Bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount, on following
conditions:
i. The applicant shall not enter into Chinchinim Village till
filing of charge-sheet except to visit police station as
required.
(7) crmab-48-2026.odt
ii. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or attempt to
coerce witnesses and shall co-operate with investigation till
filing of charge-sheet.
iii. The applicant shall visit Cuncolim Police Station, South Goa
on every Thursday between 10.00 am to 02.00 pm till filing
of charge-sheet.
iv. The applicant shall not indulge in similar offence.
v. The applicant shall furnish his local address with supporting
documents and contact number with Investigating Officer and
shall act upon messages/communications made by
Investigating Officer on said contact number.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/October-2026
Checking your session…