1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2017
Pramod Kumar s/o.
Rajendra Prasad Mohour,
… Applicant
V/s.
CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
..Respondents
Mr. Kuldeep Patil, Ld Advocate for applicant.
Mr Omprakash, Ld. SPP for CBI.
Coram:
Date
:
HH The Special Judge for CBI/The Addl.Sessions
Judge Shri. Hemant S.Mahajan (CR No.51).
07.03.2017
ORDER
1.
This is an application for enlarging applicant on regular bail in
offence registered vide C.R. No. RC BA1/2017/A0013 of 2017 for the
offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Prosecution case:
2.
According to prosecution case, a written complaint dated
24.2.2017 addressed to Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Mumbai was
received from Mr. Shrikant Mehta resident of Flat No.201, Shivlok
Apartment, Ram Lane, Kandivali(W), Mumbai alleging therein that his
nephew Shreyas Desai is proprietor of M/s. Drishti Agencies, Shop No.3,
Ashiana CHS, Shantilal Modi Road, Kandivali, Mumbai since 2004 and he
is assisting him in the business. M/s. Drishti Agencies is a firm representing
overseas manufacturers as their all India distributors/ agents. The firm
2
primarily deals in specialty fertilizers and represents M/s. Sohar Sulphur
Fertilizer LLC, Sohar, Oman, manufacturer of sulphur based fertilizer in
India.
Further, during 2016, M/s. Sohar Sulphur Fertilizer LLC had
supplied sulphur to different importers in India through different ports. It
is alleged that, during 2016, Mr. Pramod, Inspector of Central Fertilizer
Quality Control & Training Institute, Faridabad, has demanded Rs.2 lacs as
illegal gratification from the complainant on behalf of Dr. Shailendra
Singh, Director, Central Fertilizer Quality Control & Training Institute,
Faridabad, to ensure that the samples of consignments of the company of
which M/s. Drishti Agencies is the agent will not be affected in future. Mr.
Pramod, Inspector, further instructed the complainant to arrange for his
stay and return ticket to Gandhidham.
3.
During verification proceedings vide panchanamas dated
24.2.2017 and 25.2.2017, conversation between the applicant and the
complainant came to be recorded.
It transpired demand of illegal
gratification of Rs.50,000/ and Rs.16,000/ in respect of samples passed
earlier as of now and Rs.4000/ (per container for future consignment) by
the applicant for himself and on behalf of Shailendra Singh, Director, from
the complainant. It is alleged that, prima facie, demand regarding bribe is
established from the said conversation. It is alleged that, the applicant
subsequently provided bank account details to the complainant informing
that the same is of his brother in law and directing the complainant to
transfer the amount of Rs.50,000/ and Rs.16,000/ to the said account.
Further, the applicant demanded illegal gratification of an amount of
Rs.7600/ incurred by him towards flight ticket and the amount to be
3
deposited in his personal bank account. It is alleged that, on 1.3.2017, an
amount of Rs.7500/ was deposited in the bank account of the applicant
towards bribe demanded by him towards flight tickets, charges and
Rs.16,000/ in the bank account of his brother in law towards demand of
Rs.4000/ each for four containers in respect of samples passed earlier. It
is alleged that thereafter the said deposit was confirmed vide recorded
conversation between complainant and the applicant.
As such, on
2.3.2017, the applicant then came to be arrested and produced before
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, who then remanded the applicant
under transit remand upto 6.3.2017. The applicant then produced before
this Court. Further in the light of aforesaid development and overtact, the
offence came to be registered.
Application moved by applicant:
4.
Applicant, now, has moved this application for getting regular
bail. According to the applicant, he is innocent and falsely implicated in
the matter.
He has pointed out that taking in to consideration police
custody period now no more custodial investigation is required. According
to him, the offence is not punishable with capital punishment. Further, the
applicant is permanent resident of Faridabad and will cooperate with the
investigating agency, if released on bail. According to him, he is ready and
willing to abide by the conditions if any imposed by this Court and further
will make himself available as and when required for the purpose of
investigation. He has assured that he will not tamper with prosecution
side evidence, if enlarged on bail. In light of all these circumstance, the
applicant has prayed for allowing the application and enlarging him on
4
regular bail.
Reply by prosecution:
5.
The prosecution has filed detailed reply and opposed the
application. According to prosecution, investigation is at initial and
preliminary as well as crucial stage and hence, if the applicant is enlarged
on bail then prejudice will be caused to the prosecution.
Further the
prosecution has pointed out the post which the applicant was holding and
submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail then it may create hurdle
during further investigation in the matter and there is every possibility of
influencing prosecution witnesses and it may result into tampering with
evidence. Finally, according to prosecution, the witnesses relating to the
case are yet to be examined and there are chances of influencing them at
the hand of the applicant. As such, by pointing out complexity of the
matter and stage of investigation, prosecution has opposed the application.
Argument on behalf of applicant:
6.
So far as argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, it
is in the line of aforesaid submission. According to him, after three days’
police custody,
now the applicant is remanded today in magisterial
custody. It is his case that it itself discloses that no more custodial
investigation is now required. He has pointed out that the applicant is
ready and willing to abide by any conditions if imposed while granting bail
to him. According to him, the applicant is ready to stay in Mumbai till
further investigation in the matter. In the light of all these circumstances,
he has prayed for allowing the application.
5
Argument on behalf of prosecution:
7.
Per contra, Ld. SPP has opposed the application. He has pointed
out stage of the investigation. According to him, investigation is at
preliminary stage and at this stage, if applicant is enlarged on bail then it
will hamper on going investigation. He has pointed out that the witnesses
are yet to be examined and if the applicant is enlarged on bail, the on
going investigation will be suffered. This is being the position, he has
objected the application.
8.
In the light of facts involved, arguments heard, the following
point arises for my consideration and I have noted my findings against
them for the following reasons:
POINTS
FINDINGS
1. Whether the applicant is entitled
for getting regular bail?
..In the negative
2. What order?
.. As per final order
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS.1 & 2 :
9.
There is no doubt that the case in hand is not of such nature
wherein capital punishment is provided under law. However, we are at the
stage of remand. It reveals from the conversation recorded that there is
every possibility of involvement of other accused in the matter. It reveals
6
from the submission made that the investigation is going on and witnesses
are yet to be examined. So far as police custody, this Court has granted
the same for checking bank accounts etc. of the applicant. Therefore, in
my mind, when work of recording statements of witnesses is yet not
completed, it is not desirable to enlarge the applicant on bail. I find merit
in the submission of Ld. SPP that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, then
there is every possibility of influencing the witnesses by him and it will
cause prejudice to the interest of prosecution so far as on going
investigation is concerned. In fact, during the course of argument itself
this Court has, after taking into consideration submission made by both the
sides, asked Ld. Counsel for the applicant to wait for seven days only and
then this Court will consider again request for enlarging the applicant on
regular bail. It is not out of place to mention herein that, Ld. SPP also
submitted in the same line. However, Ld. Counsel for the applicant pressed
in service this application for bail and prayed for passing an order on
merit.
10.
I have already discussed that when investigation is going on and
matter is related with corruption, it should not be taken easily. It is always
desirable to provide an opportunity to the prosecution to go upto root of
the matter for collecting evidence against concerned accused. This is being
the position, presently on the basis of material available on record, I have
no hitch to observe that this is not fit stage to consider bail application of
the applicant. I, therefore, answer point under reference ‘in negative’ and
proceed to pass following order:
7
ORDER
Bail Application No.134/2017 stands rejected and disposed
off accordingly.
(Hemant S.Mahajan)
The Special Judge(CBI)/
The Addl.Sessions Judge,
Gr. Bombay (CR 51)
Date: 7.3.2017
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 7.3.2017
: 7.3.2017
: 7.3.2017
8
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ ORDER.
UPLOADED ON :7.3.2017
TIME: 5.35 pm
(NITIN V. UBALE)
SELECTION GR. STENOGRAPHER.
Name of the judge (with Court Room Shri Hemant S. Mahajan, Spl. Judge
No.)
(CBI) & Addl. Sessions Judge (C.R. 51)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/ 7.3.2017
Order
Judgment/ order signed by P.O on
7.3.2017
Judgment/ order uploaded on
7.3.2017