IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY, BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.884 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC020154282018
(In crime no.32/2018 of ACB, Mumbai, for offences punishable under
sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in
ACB RA No.947/2018)
Sachin Shankar Salve
]
Aged: 32 years, Indian Inhabitant,
]
Occ.: Service, R/o.: Room No.505,
]
Sahakar Bhavan, Near Damodar Hall, ]
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg,
]
Parel, Mumbai – 400 012.
]
APPLICANT
(ACCUSED NO.2)
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra through the ]
SHO, ACB, Mumbai.
]
RESPONDENT
(PROSECUTION)
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Sourabh More h/f Mr. Shrinivas Balla, Advocates for the
Applicant/Accused No.2.
Mr. Ramesh Siroya, APP for the Complainant/State.
APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT BAIL UNDER SECTION 167(2) OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CORAM : SHRI S.V. YARLAGADDA
SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
(Court Room No.54)
DATE :
3rd December, 2018.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
The applicant is accused no.2 in the above mentioned case.
This bail application is filed on the ground of default of the prosecution
2
to file the chargesheet within the period of 60 days from the date of his
production of the applicant.
2.
I heard the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned
additional public prosecutor and the investigating officer. I perused the
say given by the learned additional public prosecutor.
3.
The offences are punishable under sections 7, 13(1) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. None of the offences
are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Today, the judicial
custody of the applicant granted on the last date is expiring. At this
juncture, the applicant filed this application expressing his ready and
willingness to furnish the bail. Therefore, he has to be released on bail
if he furnishes the bail.
4.
I perused the explanation given by the investigating officer
filed in the remand application, for his failure to submit the chargesheet
in 60 days. His explanation is that on 28.11.2018, he already submitted
the chargesheet to his superior officer for the scrutiny and for obtaining
requisite sanction. The learned additional public prosecutor justified
the failure to file the chargesheet in 60 days. According to him, without
suggestions, scrutiny and requisite sanction, the chargesheet cannot be
filed.
5.
The investigating officer must be aware of the right of the
accused – applicant to get default bail, if the chargesheet is not filed by
01.12.2018. He submitted that on 01.12.2018, he discussed with his
superiors about the possibility of filing the chargesheet in the post lunch
3
session, but it was not possible for him. It appears to me that much
prior to 28.11.2018, the investigating officer ought to have expedited
the investigation as mandated in section 173 of the Cr.P.C. At lease at
the time of submitting the chargesheet to his superior, he ought to have
point out on 28.11.2018 that if the chargesheet is not filed by
01.12.2018, the accused would get a right of default bail. There is
nothing on record indicating that he brought it to the notice of superior
officer. It is for the superior officer to look into this aspect. I am not
satisfied with the explanation given by the investigating officer, though
justified by the learned additional public prosecutor, for the delay in
filing the chargesheet. Therefore, as directed by our Hon’ble High Court
in the case of Bulabhai Barkaji Mhatre V/s. Shankar Barkaji Mhatre,
1999(3) Mah.L.J. 227, I have to recommend for necessary action.
6.
Though the bail is granted by default in filing the
chargesheet in 60 days, it is governed by Chapter 33 of the Cr.P.C. The
offences are nonbailable. Considering the nature of the offence and the
grounds which were urged when the applicant sought bail on the first
occasion, I propose to annex necessary conditions to the bail.
Accordingly, the following order is passed.
FINAL ORDER
(1) The applicant be released on bail on PR Bond of Rs.25,000/ with
one or two solvent sureties or cash surety of like amount.
(2) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution’s evidence. He
shall not directly or indirectly bring any influence on the
prosecution’s witnesses. In case of breach, his bail is liable to be
cancelled as per the law.
(3) The applicant shall make himself available to the Investigating
Officer as and when required for investigation purpose.
4
(4) As directed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Bulabhai
Barkaji Mhatre V/s. Shankar Barkaji Mhatre, 1999(3) Mah.L.J.
227, let the copy of this order be forwarded to the Additional
Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, to fix
the responsibility of the concerned officials for the failure to file the
chargesheet within 60 days from the date of first production of the
applicant and consequently for facilitating the default bail of the
applicant.
(5) If the applicant fails to furnish the bail, his judicial custody be
extended till 17.12.2018.
The bail application is disposed off accordingly.
Date: 03/12/2018.
(S.V. YARLAGADDA)
Special Judge
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Greater Bombay.
Order Dictated on : 03/12/2018
Transcribed on
: 04/12/2018
Signed on
: 04/12/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
04/12/2018 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
03/12/2018
Order signed by P.O. on
04/12/2018
Order uploaded on
04/12/2018