IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY, BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.185 OF 2019
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.237 OF 2019
(CNR NO.: MHCC020034332019)
(In crime no.13/2019 of ACB, Worli, Mumbai, for offence punishable
under sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.)
Ramesh Narsaya Bendi
R/o.: Kismat Tadi Madi Kendra, Shop
No.91, Fish Market, Below Lower Parel,
Mumbai – 400 013.
]
]
]
]
APPLICANT
(ACCUSED NO.2)
]
]
RESPONDENT
(PROSECUTION)
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra through the
SHO, ACB, Worli, Mumbai.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. S.D. Beloskar, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused No.2.
Mr. Ramesh, APP for the Respondent/State.
APPLICATION FOR BAIL UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CORAM : SHRI S.V. YARLAGADDA
SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
(Court Room No.54)
DATE :
7th March, 2019.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
The prosecution’s case is that the applicant’s coaccused
Sumedh Sarkate, who is a constable in Excise Department demanded
bribe amount from the informant for a license of Tadi. The applicant is
2
alleged to be in collusion with the said constable and on his instructions,
he accepted the bribe amount. On the basis of the information given by
the informant, police laid a trap and arrested the applicant alongwith
said constable on 28.02.2019. Since then he is in custody. Hence, he is
seeking bail.
2.
The prosecution filed reply and opposed the bail
application. I heard the learned advocate for the applicant and the
learned additional public prosecutor. I perused the case papers.
3.
The bail is opposed on the grounds that the investigation is
pending. Statements of some witnesses are yet to be recorded. The
offence is serious. Some documents and other evidence are yet to be
collected.
4.
The applicant’s learned advocate argued that the alleged
bribe amount has been already recovered.
Nothing remained to be
recovered from the applicant. He has been already taken into judicial
custody. There is no purpose in further detention. The applicant is
ready to abide by the conditions which may be put in the bail order.
Thus, he urged for granting the bail.
5.
The learned additional public prosecutor argued that
considering the role of the applicant in collusion with a public servant
and as investigation is pending and statements of some witnesses are
yet to be recorded, the bail should be rejected.
6.
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been
3
invoked against the applicant. It is not punishable with death or life
imprisonment. In order to take care of the concerns expressed by the
prosecution, necessary conditions may be imposed while granting the
bail. I do not find it necessary to further detain the applicant. I propose
to direct the applicant not to directly or indirectly contact the
prosecution’s witnesses and to attend the ACB office once in a fortnight.
Accordingly, the following order is passed.
FINAL ORDER
(1) The applicant be released on PR Bond of Rs.25,000/ with one or
two solvent sureties of like amount. On request of the applicant’s
learned advocate, provisional cash surety of the said amount be
accepted for four weeks.
(2) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact or influence
the prosecution’s witnesses.
(3) The applicant shall attend the ACB office from 11.00 a.m. to 12.00
p.m. on every alternate Tuesday, starting from 19.03.2019 till
filing of the chargesheet or final report, as the case may be.
The application is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Date: 07/03/2019.
Order Dictated on :
Transcribed on
:
Signed on
:
(S.V. YARLAGADDA)
Special Judge
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Greater Bombay.
07/03/2019
07/03/2019
07/03/2019
4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
08/03/2019 at 5.30 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
BHARAT KASHINATH GAIKWAD
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
HHJ SHRI S.V. YARLAGADDA
(Court Room No.54)
Date of pronouncement of Order
07/03/2019
Order signed by P.O. on
07/03/2019
Order uploaded on
08/03/2019