IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY, BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.780 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC020137692018
(In crime no.37/2018 of ACB, Mumbai, for offences punishable under
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.A.
No.1047/2018.)
1. Sadeeq Hamid Khan
Aged: 38 years.
]
]
2. Dayanand Ramesh Kuchekar
Aged: 28 years.
]
APPLICANTS
(ACCUSED)
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra through the
SHO, ACB, Mumbai.
]
]
RESPONDENT
(PROSECUTION)
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Tiwari, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused No.1.
Mr. Yadav, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused No.2.
Mr. S.E. Soshthe, 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 : 2nd November, 2018.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Applicant no.1 is an Assistant Engineer and applicant no.2
is Junior Engineer in the BMC and thus they are public servants. The
2
informant has a hotel.
He had applied for permission to put up a
wooden and tarpaulin roof on his hotel. In that connection, accused
no.2 inspected that place. According to the prosecution, he asked the
informant to meet accused no.1.
Accordingly, on 23.10.2018, the
informant met accused no.1. Accused no.2 called accused no.1 to his
chamber and asked to do the work of the informant. During a further
meeting, accused no.2 told the informant that the informant has to pay
a bribe of Rs.50,000/, 50% of it before getting the permission and the
50% after getting the permission.
On 24.10.2018, the informant
reported the matter to the ACB. After verification, the ACB laid a trap.
The informant met accused no.1 and told that accused no.2 demanded
Rs.50,000/, out of which Rs.25,000/ was to be paid before the work is
done. Accused no.2 okayed it. He met and informed accused no.2 and
the latter asked him to bring Rs.25,000/. On 25.10.2018, during the
trap proceeding, accused no.2 accepted the bribe of Rs.25,000/ from
the informant. The ACB team verified the facts from the digital voice
recorded conversation and arrested both the accused i.e. the present
applicants. Now they are in judicial custody. They are seeking bail.
2.
The prosecution filed reply and opposed the bail. I heard
the learned advocates for the applicants and the learned additional
public prosecutor. I have gone through the case papers.
3.
The learned advocates for the applicants argued that the
investigation is almost complete. The applicants are ready to abide by
the conditions. The learned advocate for applicant no.1 submitted that
there was no acceptance of bribe by applicant no.1, though it is alleged
3
that he demanded the bribe. Applicants have roots in the society. They
are not likely to abscond. The offence is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Therefore, in view of the authority of Khemlo
Sakharam Sawant V/s. State, 2002(1) Bom.C.R. 689, in such cases, bail
is rule and jail is an exception. The relevant documents have been
already seized. Hence, there is no possibility of tampering with the
prosecution’s evidence.
Most of the witnesses are public servants.
Therefore, there is no possibility of threatening the witnesses.
The
applicants are ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed
while granting the bail.
4.
The learned additional public prosecutor argued that the
investigation is at initial stage. Statements of some of the witnesses are
yet to be recorded. Therefore, release of the accused on bail will give
them an opportunity to influence the witnesses. The offence is serious.
Thus, he argued for rejecting the bail.
5.
There is prima facie evidence showing the involvement of
the applicant in the offence punishable under section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Considering the object of the said
legislation, demand or acceptance of bribe is a serious offence, though it
is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In such cases, the
informant and the prosecution’s witnesses become vulnerable to the
influence of the accused – public servant, when he is released on bail.
The investigation is yet to be completed. Statements of some of the
witnesses are yet to be recorded. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure
that the informant or other prosecution witnesses are not influenced in
4
any manner by the applicants. For that purpose, I propose to put a
condition of depositing cash security, which shall be liable to be
forfeited in case of breach of such condition. The trap proceeding was
completed. The bribe amount was recovered. Therefore, that part of
collection of material evidence has been completed. But, further part of
investigation remains. Therefore, I propose to direct the applicants to
attend the ACB office twice a week for a period of six weeks. I do not
find any other reasonable ground to oppose the bail.
Hence, I am
inclined to grant conditional bail. Accordingly, the following order is
passed.
FINAL ORDER
(1) The Bail application is allowed.
(2) The applicants be released on the following terms and conditions:
(i)
The applicants shall execute of PR Bond of Rs. 50,000/ with
one or two solvent sureties or cash surety of Rs. 25,000/
each.
(ii) The applicants shall not repeat such offence and shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to the informant or any person acquainted with the facts of
the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the police officer or to the Court. They shall deposit
additional cash security of Rs.25,000/ each and in the event
of breach of this condition, the said amount shall be liable to
be forfeited, in addition to the other liabilities including
cancellation of bail.
(iii) The applicants shall attend the ACB office from 11.00 a.m. to
12.00 p.m. on every Wednesday and Friday for a period of six
weeks from the date of their release.
(iv) The Applicants shall make themselves available
interrogation by the I.O. as and when required.
for
5
(v) The applicants shall not leave India without previous
permission of the Court.
The bail application is disposed off accordingly.
(S.V. YARLAGADDA)
Special Judge
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Greater Bombay.
Date: 02/11/2018.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
:
:
:
02/11/2018
02/11/2018
02/11/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
02/11/2018 at 5.30 p.m.
BHARAT KASHINATH GAIKWAD
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
HHJ SHRI S.V. YARLAGADDA
(Court Room No.54)
Date of pronouncement of Order
02/11/2018
Order signed by P.O. on
02/11/2018
Order uploaded on
02/11/2018