1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,CBI FOR GR.BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
Bail Application No. 302 of 2018
In
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 442 OF 2018
Mrs. Jagriti Prakash Gupta
Age 32, Occ: Service
R/at Type III B, Building No.63,
Flat No.567, Near Golf Club,
Chembur, Mumbai0 400 071
Applicant accused No.2
Versus
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
Respondent/Prosecution
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Shri Sanjay Jadhav for applicant accused No.2
Ld.SPP Shri Sandeep Singh for C.B.I.
CORAM : H.H. SPECIAL JUDGE SHRI M. G. DESHPANDE
CBI SPECIAL COURT (C.R.No.52)
DATE : May 2, 2018
ORDER
1.

Accused No.2 Mrs. Jagriti Prakash Gupta, Labour Enforcement
Officer who is under judicial custody for offence under Sections 7, 12 of
The Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Section 120­B of IPC
has
prayed to release her on bail. CBI vide their reply Exh.2 strongly opposed
and contended to reject the application. Heard Ld. Adv. Shri Sanjay Jadhav
for accused No.2 and Learned SPP Shri Sandeep Singh for CBI. Following
2
points arise for my determination.

I am recording following findings
thereon for the reasons discussed below:­
POINTS
1.

Whether accused No.2 Jagriti
deserves to be released on bail?

2.

What Order?

FINDINGS
Gupta
Yes
As
per
order
final
:: R E A S O N S ::
POINT No.1 :­
FACTS:­
2.

CBI ACB, Mumbai received information from reliable sources that co­
accused Aashish Aggarwal would deliver the demanded illegal gratification
of Rs. 1,20,000/­ in three packets of Rs.70,000/­, Rs. 30,000/­ and Rs.
20,000/­ to the accused No.1 Shyamalendu Kumar Das, applicant accused
No.2 Mrs. Jagruti Gupta and other officers of Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) on 20.4.2018 at 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. in their office at
Shram Raksha Bhawan, Shivshrushti Road, Sion(East), Mumbai in lieu of
issuance of Labour Contract License to M/s. Som Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Accordingly, on 20.4.2018 accused No.1 and applicant Mrs. Jagruti Gupta,
Labour Enforcement Officer accepted envelopes containing bribe amount
Rs.70,000/­, Rs. 20,000/­ and Rs. 30,000/­ respectively. Thereafter, co­
accused Shri Aashish Aggarwal and Shri Pradeep Vishwakarma collected
labour license and certificate from office of Deputy Chief Labour
Commissioner. Three white envelopes containing bribe amount of
Rs.70,000/­, Rs. 20,000/­ and Rs. 30,000/­ were recovered from the
3
possession of applicant accused and co­accused. In this way, the trap was
successful. Searches u/s. 165 Cr.P.C. were conducted at the residential and
office premises of applicant and co­accused. Incriminating documents were
seized from them. These are the facts.
GROUNDS:­
(i)
Applicant has falsely got implicated in a concocted case.

(ii)
Offence alleged against her does not attract punishable
Sections.

(iii)
There was no demand nor the applicant knows other
accused persons.

(iv)
Case is based on searches and seizures. Hence, no
purpose will be served by detaining the applicant as the
searches and seizures are over.

(v)
Case may result in clear acquittal of applicant.

(vi)
Bail is rule and jail is exception.

(vii)
She would not jump up the bail nor tamper with the
evidence of the prosecution.

(viii)
There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant.

(ix)
She will abide all the terms and conditions.
These are the grounds for bail.

Main points on which CBI resisted application are as follows:
(a)
Trap was successful and accused No.1 Shyamalendu Das
and applicant Mrs. Jagruti Gupta accepted the envelopes
containing bribe amount when trapped.

(b)
The investigation is at initial stage and incriminating
documents recovered from the search of the house of the
public servants indicate their involvement in corrupt
practices and obtaining illegal gratification from various
4
contractors.
(c)
There is sufficient documentary and circumstantial
evidence to prove the involvement of the applicant.

(d)
Applicant is not permanent resident of Mumbai, hence
there is every possibility of her absconding.

(e)
Investigation is at a very crucial stage and applicant is
very influential. Hence, possibility to influence the
witnesses and tampering evidence is there.

(f)
CBI, ACB received the intercepted recorded calls of the
accused and analysis thereof is going on. There is every
likelihood of involvement of subordinate officials.

(g)
Offence is serious hence, strong message needs to be
conveyed to the society. CBI would complete
investigation within prescribed time.

These are the grounds on which CBI resisted the application
and contended to reject the same.

3.

I carefully examined all the grounds in the application and say.

Admittedly, there was successful trap on 20.4.2018. Alleged white
envelopes/packets containing bribe amount were recovered when trapped.
It is also an admitted fact that search of the houses of the applicant and co­
accused was taken and relevant documents were seized.

This fact is
evident from Paragraph ­7 of the Remand Application which indicates that
all the necessary documents were seized and scrutiny thereof was only
remained. This was the situation on the first day of the Remand i.e.
21.4.2018.

Even exchange of conversation on mobile was also recorded
and available with Investigating Officer. All these grounds nowhere
indicate necessity of keeping the accused behind the bars.

5
4.

It is the contention of CBI that applicant is not resident of Mumbai
and therefore, likely to abscond. It cannot be ignored that applicant is
woman Central Government Officer. She has a daughter aged 3 years.
There is no one to look after her. There is no certainty that charge­sheet
would be filed soon and trial will begin immediately. There are no
overwhelming circumstances to indicate that the detention of woman
accused No.2 for endless period is an exceptional need of the trial. If
certain conditions are imposed on her, her presence can be secured and
apprehension expressed by CBI can be safeguarded. Say and Remand
Application of CBI further indicate that everything was seized from the
house of the applicant. Since 21.4.2018 the applicant is in judicial custody.
Even all other grounds putforth by CBI to resist the application clearly
indicates that investigation is almost over. There is no certainty or
likelihood of beginning the trial in coming days. No antecedents of the
applicant are pointed out. Offence u/s. 7 of The Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988 provides punishment which may extend to seven years, offence
u/s. 12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act provides punishment which
may extend to seven years and not less than 3 years and offence u/s. 120­B
I.P.C. provides punishment in the same manner. Even the contention of
CBI that she is likely to influence the witnesses is also not justified. If
certain conditions are imposed on applicant such apprehensions of CBI
would be safeguarded.

In the result, Point No.1 is answered in the
affirmative and following order is passed:­
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.302 of 2018 is allowed.

6
2.

Applicant accused No.2 Jagriti Gupta be released on bail
by her furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs.30,000/­ and surety
bond of like amount i.e Solvency Certificate or two
sureties each of Rs.15,000/­.

3.

As requested by Ld. Adv. for applicant accused No.2, she
is permitted to deposit Rs. 30,000/­ being cash security
alongwith P.R. Bond and Surety Bond of like amount for
Three Weeks till she furnishes the sureties.

4.

Applicant accused No.2 Jagriti Gupta shall furnish the CBI
and Court correct details of her temporary, permanent
residential address, office address with landline, mobile
phone numbers, email ids and shall undertake to provide
in future any change therein, to the CBI and Court.

5.

Applicant accused No.2 Jagriti Gupta shall also furnish
the name of the authorized person with all his
particulars, details ( Address, Mobile, Landline Numbers,
e­mail ids ) to whom the CBI and Court should contact in
case, the accused remains absent.

6.

Applicant accused No.2 Jagriti Gupta shall undertake to
attend Investigating Officer/CBI, ACB, Mumbai once in a
week at any time between 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. on
every Friday till further order. CBI shall maintain its
record and report immediately to the Court any non
compliance thereof.

7.

Applicant accused No.2 Jagriti Gupta shall deposit her
passport with CBI.

8.

Applicant accused No.2 Jagriti Gupta shall not leave India
without permission of the Court and scrupulously attend
each and every date of the Court.

7
9
Breach of any of the above conditions will be a ground to
cancel the bail.

(M. G. Deshpande)
Special Judge (C.B.I.),
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

Date: 2.5.2018
Dictated on
:
Transcribed on
:
Draft submitted on:
Final submitted on:
Signed by HHJ on :
2.5.2018
2.5.2018
2.5.2018
2.5.2018
2.5.2018
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order.
5.5.2018 (5.50 p.m.)
DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.)

B.S.Parab
HHJ Shri M.G.Deshpande
C.R.No.52
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
2.5.2018
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
2.5.2018
Judgment/Order uploaded on
5.5.2018
8