..1..

B.A. No.188 OF 2022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
ACB BAIL APPLICATION NO. 188 OF 2022
(CNR NO. : MHCC02­003951­2022)
IN
(DISP.OFF) ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO. 249 OF 2022
IN
C.R. NO.13 OF 2022
Bharat Laxman Mundhe
Aged 33 years, Occ : Service,
R/at : Room No.303, UBI Transit Camp,
Ghatkopar (East)
)
)
)
)….Applicant/Orig. Accd.

Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
)
(At the instance of A.C.B., Worli, Mumbai )
(C.R.No.13/2022)
)….Respdt./Complainant
APPEARANCE : ­
Ld. Adv. Shri. Vinod S. Chate for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Shri. Pankaj Chavan for the State/Respondent/ACB.
CORAM:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT, 1988
DEEPAK D. ALMALE,
(C.R. No. 45).

DATED:
1st APRIL, 2022.
: ORAL ORDER :
This is successive bail application moved by accused Bharat
..2..

B.A. No.188 OF 2022
Laxman Munde for bail in view of Sec.439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2.

In the application it is alleged that Applicant/accused came
to be arrested on dated 11.03.2022 in connection with C.R.No.18/2022
registered by the ACB Mumbai u/sec.7, 7 A of Prevention of Corruption
Act. Previous bail application filed by the present applicant/accused was
came to be rejected by this court by order dated 14.03.2022. According
to applicant/accused, as on 14.03.2022 almost material investigation of
the
matter
completed
therefore
further
detention
of
the
applicant/accused is not at all necessary. Further, it is contended that
applicant/accused has not committed alleged offence but he is falsely
implicated in the present case. Further, it is also contended that there is
no prima­facie evidence against the accused therefore he may be
released on bail and he is ready to abide all the terms and condition as
may be imposed by the court.
3.

Application objected by the prosecution by filing detail say
below Exh.2 with contention that if accused is released on bail then
there is every possibility that accused may pressurized complainant and
other witnesses. Hence, Ld. APP prayed for dismissal of the application
on the ground that there is no change in the circumstances.
4.

I have heard learned advocate of accused, Ld. APP and
Investigation Officer.
5.

Ld advocate of accused has submitted that statement of the
witnesses is already recorded and further detention of the accused is
not at all necessary. He also submits that the alleged offence punishable
u/sec.7 and 7A of P.C. Act are punishable for imprisonment upto 7
years therefore accused is entitled for bail. In support of argument has
..3..

B.A. No.188 OF 2022
relied upon a ruling Khemlo Sakharam Sawant V/s. State
2001
BomCR(Cri)761, Bhagirathsinh Judeja V/s. State of Gujarat 1984
AIR (SCC) 37 and Mohan Raikwar V/s. State of M.P. 20001 (2) HLR
456.
6.

I have considered submissions of both the sides and gone
through the case papers. Admittedly first bail application filed by the
applicant/accused came to be rejected by this court on 14.03.2022 with
observation that, taking into account involvement of the accused,
acceptance of bribe and taken into account quantum of bribe amount of
Rs.5,00,000/­ obviously it is serious case. Further it was observed that
investigation of the case is going on therefore possibility of tampering of
prosecution witnesses and threatening to the complainant at the hands
of the accused cannot be ruled out.
7.

In light of this fact it is necessary to look into the any
change in the circumstances which justify grant of the bail to the
accused. The Ld. advocate of the accused submits that statement of
witnesses is came to be recorded onwards 14.03.2022 and nothing is
remain to investigate. However, upon going through the bail application
it is noticed that this fact is missing in the bail application. At same time
I.O. also submits that still investigation is going on and statement of the
witnesses is yet to be recorded. However, in the say Exh.2 filed by the
Investigation Officer he has not specifically mentioned that yet
statements of all witnesses are recorded. In the reply I.O. submits that if
accused is released on bail he may put pressure upon the prosecution
witnesses. This fact mentioned by the I.O. in the say Exh.2 itself goes to
show that statement of all the prosecution witnesses is not recorded. In
the other words it can be said that still process of effective investigation
is going on.

..4..

8.

B.A. No.188 OF 2022
Coming towards the ruling relied upon by the accused, in
case of Khemlo Sawant cited supra in the said case co­accused was
absconding therefore bail was refused. However, Hon’ble High Court
observed that this cannot be a sufficient ground to refuse bail especially
when principal offender has not beeen booked and applicant is merely
charged of abatement. So far case in hand is concerned, the
applicant/accused is the main accused and at relevant time was serving
as a Police Sub­Inspector at N.M. Joshi Marg Police Station. Therefore,
with due respect the ratio laid down in the ruling cited supra cannot be
made applicable to the case at hand.
9.

In the ruling Bhagirathsinh Judeja Their Lordships of
Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that, for granting of bail only material
considerations are whether the accused would be readily available for
his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his
favour by tampering with the evidence.

So for case at hand is
concerned, in the reply Exh.2 I.O. specifically objected bail application
on the ground that if accused is released on bail he may put pressure
upon the prosecution witnesses. Taking into account role of the accused
and the post occupied by him at the time of offence, there is every
possibility that accused may put pressure upon the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore, with due respect the ruling cited supra does not
come to the help of accused.
10.

As regards last ruling Mohan Raikwar cited supra
the
accused of that case was charged for an offences punishable u/sec.323,
294, 506 II of Indian Penal Code. However, in the case it hand accused
is charged for an offences punishable u/sec.7 and 7A of Prevention of
Corruption Act which is more serious. Therefore, acts of the present
case are altogether different than the involved in the ruling cited supra.

..5..

B.A. No.188 OF 2022
Hence, the said ruling cannot be made applicable to the case at hand.
11.

Thus, on the strength of aforesaid reasons and discussion I
find that absolutely there is no change in the circumstances which
would entitle the accused for grant of bail. Hence, I do not find any
substance into the contentions raised by the applicant/accused. Taking
into account ongoing investigation, I am of opinion that it is not fit case
to enlarge the accused on the bail. Hence, I passed following order­
ORDER
1.Bail Application No.188/2022 is hereby rejected.
2.Bail Application No.188/2022 stands disposed off.
DEEPAK
DADARAO
ALMALE
Date: 01.04.2022
Directly dictated on Com :­ 01.04.2022.
Checked on
:­ 01.04.2022.
HHJ signed on
:­ 01.04.2022.

Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DADARAO
ALMALE
Date:
2022.04.01
17:44:23 +0530
(Deepak D. Almale)
Spl. Judge ACB (BMU)
City Civil & Sessions Court
Gr. Bombay.

..6..

B.A. No.188 OF 2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
:
01.04.2022, 05.36 pm.
Mr. Harshal D. Jagtap
(Stenographer Grade­I)
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ Deepak D. Almale
Room No.)
C.R. No.45
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 01.04.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.O. on
by 01.04.2022
signed
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
01.04.2022