Order
.. 1 ..

ACB Bail Application No. 42/2022
CNR No. MHCC02-000920-2022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
ACB BAIL APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2022
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO. 21 OF 2022
Shri. Anil Madanji Jadhav,
Age:52 years, Occupation:Service,
Residing at Room No. 11, Y-1 Building,
Government Officers’ Quarters,
Ali Yavar Jung Road, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400 051.

)
)
)
)
)
)
Applicant/Orig. Accd.

)
)
)
Respdt./Complainant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B., Mumbai
vide C. R. No. 1/2022).

Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/orig. accused.
Mr. Pankaj Chavan, Ld. A.P.P. for the State/Respondent/ACB.
CORAM:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT, 1988
S. P. NAIK-NIMBALKAR,
(C.R. No. 46).

DATED:
1st February, 2022.

:ORAL ORDER:
This is the second application filed by the applicant/original
accused Shri. Anil Madanji Jadhav under Section 439 of the Code of
..2..
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C.” for short) for releasing him on
bail. The applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable
u/sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is in Judicial
Custody (J.C.) since 10/01/2022.
2.

Brief facts pertaining to the prosecution case can be stated
as follows :a.

The first informant Mr. Deepak Shrichand Tekchandani is a
partner in Tender Skin International Cosmetology Academy.

He had
applied for approval to conduct various courses in the said academy
with the office of Maharashtra State Skill Development Society
(‘M.S.S.D.S.’ for short).

The applicant/accused is the Chairman of
M.S.S.D.S. The first informant was granted approval in the month of
July 2021, but for final approval, the applicant/accused demanded bribe
of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the first informant.
b.

The verification procedure of demand was carried by the
Anti-corruption Bureau on receipt of the complaint. On 07/12/2021,
the first informant went to the ACB office and submitted a written
complaint.

On its basis, the verification was done on 09/12/2021,
13/12/2021,
14/12/2021,
20/12/2021
&
29/12/2021.

The
prosecution relied on the demand verification dated 14/12/2021. On
14/12/2021, in the office of applicant/accused, during discussion the
applicant/accused had demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- by showing five fingers
of his right hand in order to grant final approval for the first informant’s
said academy. The first informant said that “five is very big”. To which
the applicant/accused replied that “five is not big” and further said that
“it is a big opportunity”.
c.

On 04/01/2022, the first informant had messaged the
applicant/accused on his phone saying “Happiness Morning”. To which
at around 11.26 a.m., the first informant had received a whats-app call
from
the
applicant/accused.

He
was
called
to
meet
the
..3..
applicant/accused in his office. Thereafter, it was informed to the ACB
and accordingly arrangement for the pre-trap was done.
informant did not have Rs. 5,00,000/-.
arranged
Rs.

12,000/-
from
his
The first
The first informant had
bank
account
and
ACB
Officer/Investigating Officer Smt. Supriya K. Nate had arranged Rs.
4,88,000/- fake toy currency notes as bribe amount.
d.

The first informant and panch Shri. Rajendra Raut went to
the office of applicant/accused and the Trap Unit had surrounded
nearby the office.

The first informant had removed three envelopes
containing of total Rs. 5,00,000/- cash from his left side pant’s pocket
and kept it on the table. The applicant/accused picked those envelopes
and kept it in the left drawer of table. The first informant upon asking
about the final approval on the pending file, the applicant/accused
informed him that the final approval of the pending file of first
informant will be done till Friday. Thereafter, the first informant came
out of the office and gave missed call as a signal on the phone of Police
Officer, as per plan.

Thereafter, immediately the Trap Unit of ACB
raided the office and arrested the applicant/accused and took him into
custody along with the bribe money.
e.

On 05/01/2022, the FIR bearing C.R. No. 1/2022 came to
be registered with the ACB, Mumbai against the applicant/accused for
the offence punishable u/sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Subsequently during the search at the office of applicant/accused
and at his house, the property pertaining to Rs. 2,28,100/- cash, two
laptops with chargers, twenty-six pen-drives, four hard-disks, Rs.
79,63,500/- cash, 1.572 kg. of gold & jewellery and 1.500 kg. of silver,
totalling to worth of Rs. 1,73,34,765/- respectively, came to be seized by
the ACB.
3.

The applicant/accused was produced before this Court on
..4..
05/01/2022 and remanded to Police Custody till 07/01/2022, which
was again extended till 10/01/2022 and as he was tested Covid positive
during the Police Custody, he was taken into Judicial Custody on
10/01/2022.

His first bail application bearing Bail Application No.

20/2022 came to be rejected vide order dated 12/01/2022.
4.

The grounds on which the bail is preferred by the applicant/
accused may be listed in short as follows :a.

The applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case. There is no substantial material or independent
witness to support the case of prosecution. The verification was carried
out on 14/12/2021 and thereafter about 22 days’ later, the alleged trap
was laid. There is no explanation/justification pertaining to the delay of
22 days in filing the FIR, caused by the ACB from the date of verification
and later suddenly on 04/01/2022, they laid a trap on the
applicant/accused, which suggests malafides on the part of ACB.
b.

It is further submitted that the ACB has virtually completed
the investigation and seized all the alleged material, which they
purportedly relied upon against the applicant/accused in the alleged
commission of crime.

The further custody of applicant/accused is
unwarranted. Sufficient Police Custody Remand (P.C.R.) of six days has
already been given to the applicant/accused.

The applicant/accused
undertakes and is ready & willing to co-operate with the ACB in
investigation, if released on bail.
c.

The applicant/accused has no criminal antecedents and is
residing on the given address and has roots in Mumbai & India. The
applicant/accused is 52 years old and came to be tested Covid positive
during the P.C.R. The applicant/accused is 52 years old and was tested
Covid positive during the Police Custody. He is suffering from cervical
spondylosis
and
hyper-tension
and
is
on
medications.

The
applicant/accused needs proper medical treatment and hence, he be
..5..
released on bail.
d.

The investigation is virtually over and the applicant/accused
has co-operated the Investigating Agency during his P.C.R., therefore
there is no further need of custodial interrogation. The data in harddisks is already examined and office file of the said academy has been
taken into custody. The applicant/accused will not abscond, tamper the
evidence or influence the witnesses, if released on bail. He is a reputed
person in the society having family of wife and children, who are
dependent on him. Hence, on all these grounds, it is prayed that the
applicant/accused be released on bail.
5.

Notice was issued to the State/ACB. Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj
Chavan has appeared for the State/ACB and submitted the reply of
Investigating Officer Smt. Supriya K. Nate dated 12/01/2022 at Exh-2.
6.

As per the reply of prosecution, it has objected the bail
application of applicant/accused on the grounds as follows :a.

The investigation is at preliminary stage and detail
investigation is yet to be done. He may influence the informant and
witnesses.
would
Therefore, if the applicant/accused is released on bail, it
adversely
affect
the
investigation
in
progress.

The
applicant/accused will pressurize the first informant and direct
witnesses of this crime, if released on bail.
b.

During the house search of applicant/accused, total amount
of Rs. 79,63,500/- cash, 1.572 kg. of gold & ornaments worth Rs.
74,81,745/-, silver ornaments of 7.500 kg. worth Rs. 4,65,000/- and
total property along with household furniture worth Rs. 1,73,34,765/- is
found. So also in the office of applicant/accused, an amount of Rs.
2,28,100/- is found. No explanation about this seized amount is given
by the applicant/accused during P.C.R.

..6..
c.

The important documents pertaining to this crime are not
seized from the office of applicant/accused. There is possibility that he
would destroy this evidence, if released on bail.

The details of this
offence are yet to be collected from the office of applicant/accused and
if he is released on bail, he would influence the other public servants.
The applicant/accused may flee from Mumbai and would not be
available for further investigation. The statements of witnesses are yet
to be recorded and he may pressurize them. Hence, it is submitted to
reject the bail application of applicant/accused on all these grounds.

Submissions :7.

Heard both the sides.

8.

Ld.

Advocate
Mr.

Niranjan
Mundargi
for
the
applicant/accused has submitted along with the line of his
contentions in the bail application. He has additionally submitted
that
the
investigation
is
not
in
primitive
stage.

The
applicant/accused is under suspension, therefore there is no
connection of the applicant/accused with his office at present. The
applicant/accused is ready to undertake and comply with any
condition including not to visit his office and also to attend the
concerned Police Station.
9.

It is further submitted by Ld. Advocate Mr. Niranjan
Mundargi for the applicant/accused that the cash amount and the
articles, allegedly recovered, are not connected with the prime
allegation of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Till today, no offence other than Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, is invoked against the applicant/accused and
for applicability of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption
..7..

Act, 1988, preliminary enquiry is necessary to be done and the
applicant/accused would join the preliminary enquiry, if called for.
10.

It is also submitted by Ld. Advocate Mr. Niranjan
Mundargi for the applicant/accused that this is not the case of
disproportionate assets and so far as the allegations in the complaint
are concerned, investigation is over and no purpose would be served
by keeping the applicant/accused in jail hereinafter.
11.

It is further submitted by Ld. Advocate Mr. Nirnajan
Mundargi for the applicant/accused that the Government Resolution
dated 18/01/2022 has been issued. As per the references quoted in
Government Resolution dated 18/01/2022, it can be seen at Serial
No. 6 that the applicant/accused had submitted his letter dated
31/12/2021 for approval of Tailor made courses and accordingly
final approval to the Certificate Courses of the informant’s academy
has been granted and such enclosures are annexed to the
Government Resolution. He has further relied on the observations
of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Khemlo Sakharam
Sawant vs. State reported in (2001)2 BOMLR 875. I will refer to
this authority case-law at the relevant part of the order. On all these
grounds, he has prayed to release the applicant/accused on bail.
12.

Per-contra, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Chavan for the
State/ACB has submitted that the quantum of cash amount as well
as gold & silver ornaments and the electronic gadgets recovered
from the house as well as the office of applicant/accused, is very
large.

There is no explanation given by the applicant/accused
pertaining to the seizure.

The entire facts pertaining to the
..8..

commission of this offence, are not yet revealed. The documents
are not entirely collected. They are associated with the office of
applicant/accused, where he was the Head of Office. Therefore,
there is every possibility that he may influence the investigation in
progress and would flee from the justice.

Hence on all these
grounds, Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Chavan for the State/ACB has prayed
to reject the bail application of applicant/accused.
13.

The Investigating Officer Smt. Supriya K. Nate is present
today before the Court along with the case-diary and has also
submitted in tune with the submissions of Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj
Chavan for the State/ACB. Investigation Officer Smt. Supriya K.
Nate has further submitted that the applicant/accused was tested
Covid positive on 10/01/2022. He was tested Covid negative on
21/01/2022 and was further adviced to remain under quarantine
period.

The documents from his office are collected.

The
statements of some witnesses are recorded and some of the
witnesses are yet to be recorded. Investigation is in progress. The
applicant/accused
investigation.

has
not
entirely
co-operated
with
the
The gist of submissions of prosecution is that the
investigation is yet in progress and it may be hampered by release of
applicant/accused on bail.
14.

In view of the above rival facts, the following points
arise for my consideration and I have given my findings against each
of them for the reasons recorded below :Points
(1)
Findings
Whether the applicant/accused is entitled
to be released on bail u/sec. 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
.. In the negative
..9..

(2)
What order ?

.. As per final order
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 :15.

I have perused the bail application as well as the case-
papers produced by the Investigating Officer Smt. Supriya K. Nate. I
have also given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of
both the sides.
16.

While deciding the bail application, it is well settled that
the Court would not endeavor to decide the guilt or innocence of
the accused for the offences. However, the complicity of accused
pending the investigation, so also considering the nature and gravity
of offence vis-a-vis the criminal antecedents of accused and
possibility to influence the investigation, are some of the factors,
which would have to be considered while deciding the bail
application.
17.

It is an admitted fact that the first bail application of
applicant/accused bearing No. 20/2022 was rejected as per order
dated 12/01/2022.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Niranjan Mundargi has
pointed out para 20 of the order to canvass the submission that the
first bail application was rejected on the grounds that investigation
was pending then.

He further submits that as of now the
investigation is completed.
18.

While rejecting the first bail application, the prima-facie
case against the applicant/accused, complicity of the accused in this
..10..

offence, reasonable grounds to prima-facie believe that the
accusation is well-founded and the pending investigation with the
applicant/accused, were considered in detail. Hence, no purpose
would be served in this application by reiterating and repeating the
same. As of now, it is to be considered as to whether there is any
facts change in situation and circumstances, which would lead to an
inference of entitlement of bail.
19.

As per the say of prosecution Exh-2, it is mentioned that
the documents from the office of applicant/accused are collected.
The statements of some of the witnesses are recorded. However, it
is also mentioned in the say of prosecution that the process of
recording of statements of witnesses, is not yet over.

There is
nothing in the say of Investigating Officer to infer that the
investigation is entirely completed and the applicant/accused, if
released on bail, would not influence the outcome of the
investigation process. Therefore, considering the fact of ongoing
investigation with regard to the specific reasons while rejecting the
first bail application, it can not be held at this stage that the
investigation is completed and there is facts change in situation or
change in circumstances from the filing of first bail application till
date.
20.

On going through the Government Resolution dated
18/01/2022, it is seen that the applicant/accused has forwarded the
proposal for sanction of certified courses to the academy of the first
informant on 31/12/2021.

However, it would be premature to
decide the nexus between the Government Resolution dated
18/01/2022 and filing of F.I.R. dated 05/01/2022.

It may be
..11..

conclusively determined in the light of further evidence, to be
adduced, at the time of trial.
21.

The observations in the case of Khemlo Sakharam
Sawant vs. State (cited supra) are as under :”10. In the present case, although the Investigating
Agency has alleged that if the applicant is released on
bail, he is likely to tamper with the evidence. This
apprehension is totally misplaced, for the simple reason
that having regard to the nature of the allegations in the
complaint, the crucial evidence is that of the
complainant himself. Therefore, in case the applicant, if
released on bail, and attempts to bring any pressure on
the complainant, that would be a good case for
cancellation of bail, but it will result in miscarriage of
justice to keep the applicant in custody on the basis of
mere apprehension. It is not necessary for this Court to
go into the correctness of the statements recorded by
the Investigating Officer for the same will have to be
done at the appropriate stage during the trial. For the
time being, what is to be seen, is the nature of the
offence; and the possibility of the applicant, if released
on bail, making any attempt to tamper with the
prosecution evidence or witnesses. As observed earlier,
the complaint is simplicitor for an offence under Section
12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and in that
connection, necessary evidence has already been
recorded by the Investigating Agency. Merely because
co-accused is absconding, is not a sufficient ground to
refuse bail in such matters especially when the principal
offender has not been booked and the applicant is
merely charged of abetment. In the circumstances, I
have no hesitation in observing that the Sessions Court
was clearly in error in refusing bail mainly being
influenced by considerations other than law.”
22.

On going through the case-law, it is seen that the facts
are entirely different. The stage of investigation is different. The
offences applied and complicity, are different. Therefore, with great
..12..

respect and regards, the ratio in Khemlo Sakharam Sawant vs. State
(cited supra) is not applicable to the case in hand.
23.

Thus to conclude, the investigation is yet incomplete.

There is no facts change in situation or change in circumstances
from the date of filing of first bail application till date. As strong
possibility yet remains that the applicant/accused may influence the
ongoing investigation process, no case for enlargement on bail is
made out by him. Resultantly, I answer Point No. 1 in the negative
and with regard to Point No. 2, I proceed to pass the following
order :ORDER
1.
ACB Bail Application No. 42/2022 in ACB Remand
Application No. 21/2022 (C.R. No. 1/2022) filed by the
applicant/original accused Shri. Anil Madanji Jadhav is hereby
rejected.
2.

ACB Bail Application No. 42/2022 in ACB Remand
Application No. 21/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
NAIKNIMBALKAR
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
Date:-01/02/2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Sent to Dept. on
:
:
:
:
Digitally signed by
NAIKNIMBALKAR
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
Date: 2022.02.01
15:31:01 +0530
(S. P. NAIK-NIMBALKAR)
Special Judge under P.C. Act,
City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay
at Mumbai.

01/02/2022
01/02/2022
01/02/2022
..13..

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
01/02/2022 at 3:30 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Gitalaxmi R. Mohite
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.

H.H.J. Shri. S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar
(Court Room No. 46)
)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 01/02/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
01/02/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
01/02/2022