The North Goa District and Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to Goa Cricket Association (GCA) officials Tulsidas Shetye and Harish Shinde in a criminal case registered by Porvorim Police alleging wrongful restraint, use of criminal force, and criminal intimidation against a government-appointed chartered accountant. The court ordered pre-arrest bail for both accused on furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 each with one local surety.

Porvorim Police Station registered an FIR on August 31, 2026, based on a written complaint by Shree Nair, a chartered accountant residing in Fatorda, Margao. Nair had been appointed by the Registration Department, Government of Goa, to conduct a statutory audit of the GCA’s accounts and records.

According to the complaint, while Nair was discharging his lawful duties at the GCA office in Porvorim on August 26, 2026, Shetye and Shinde acted with a common intention to obstruct his work. The complainant alleged that the two officials compelled him to sign a document using criminal force, wrongfully restrained him, verbally abused and threatened him, and obstructed a public servant in the discharge of official duties.

Seeking bail, defence counsel highlighted that although the incident allegedly occurred on August 26, 2026, the FIR was lodged only on August 31, 2026. Counsel submitted that the complainant, being a government-appointed professional, ought to have appreciated the significance of the delay in lodging a criminal complaint. The defence also placed on record communications showing that the GCA president had already submitted the relevant CCTV footage from the conference hall camera, along with the requisite electronic evidence certificate; the footage reportedly shows the complainant seated in the hall for about 90 minutes before leaving.

Opposing the plea, the public prosecutor submitted that the investigation is at a preliminary stage and that both accused are influential individuals who could tamper with evidence or witnesses.

After hearing both parties, the court held that, given the nature of the allegations and the fact that the relevant CCTV footage and electronic evidence certificates were already with the investigating officer, the custodial interrogation of either applicant was not warranted. The court further held that the prosecution’s concerns regarding witness tampering could be effectively mitigated through appropriate bail conditions.

The court directed that both applicants be released in the event of their arrest, subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one local surety of the same amount.