Order
.. 1 ..

ACB Bail Application No. 237/2022
MHCC020046462022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
ACB BAIL APPLICATION NO. 237 OF 2022
(CNR No. MHCC02­004646­2022)
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2022
1. Dr. Sandeep Ravindra Gaikwad )
2. Sachin Mahadev Kokitkar
)
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B., Mumbai
vide C. R. No. 24/2022).
Respdt./Complainant
Applicant/Orig. Accd.
No. 1
Applicant/Orig. Accused
No.2
)
)
)
Appearances :
Mr. Prerak Sharma, Ld. Adv. for the applicant/orig. accused.
Mr. Pankaj Chavan, Ld. A.P.P. for the State/Respondent/ACB.

CORAM:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT, 1988
S. P. NAIK­NIMBALKAR,
(C.R. No. 46).

DATED:
12th April, 2022.

..2..

:ORAL ORDER:
The application is filed by the applicants/accused under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C.” for
short) for releasing him on bail. They are arrested for the offence under
Sections 7 and 7 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act”
for short) is filed vide C.R. No. 24/2022 by the ACB. Accused No.1 is in
Judicial Custody since 11/04/2022 and accused No.2 is in judicial
custody since 08/04/2022.
2.

The gist of prosecution case is that accused No.2 has
demanded bribe of Rs. 3,000/­ on 06.04.2022 in presence of accused
No.1. Pursuant to the demand of bribe trap was laid. During trap an
amount of Rs. 3,000/­ was accepted by accused No.2 for himself and
accused No.1. The bribe amount was accepted with regard to the
pending work of conversation of hotel license, transformation of furnace
from diesel to LPG and change in pin code. The complaint was filed on
10.01.2022. On seven occasion verification was done. The demand was
confirmed and verified on 06.04.2022 from accused No.2. Hence, FIR
was filed for the aforementioned offence.
3.

The grounds on which bail is sought are that, the
applicants/accused have been falsely implicated. Further custody
interrogation is not necessary. Applicants are having unblemished
service record. All panchanama are done. They are permanent resident
of Mumbai. There is no prima facie evidence against the accused
persons. The allegations are fabricated. Applicant No.1 is made a
scapegoat. The FIR is filed to malign the reputation of accused persons.
They are ready to abide with any conditions imposed by this Court.
Hence, bail may be granted.
4.

Notice was issued to the State/ACB. The prosecution has
..3..
opposed the bail application on the grounds that investigation is in
primary stage and the accused persons would destroy evidence,
pressurize the witnesses and they would not be available, if released on
bail. Statements of witnesses are yet to be recorded. They have not
given satisfactory explanation regarding the amount. Hence, bail may
not be granted.
5.

In view of the above rival facts, the following points arise
for my consideration and I have given my findings against each of them
for the reasons recorded below :­
Points
Findings
(1)
Whether the applicants/accused are entitled
to be released on bail under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?.. In the affirmative
(2)
What order ?

.. As per final order
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 :­
6.

Heard both the sides and perused the case record.

7.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Prerak Sharma for the applicants/accused
and Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Chavan for the State/ACB have submitted as
per their respective contentions. Additionally, Ld. Adv. Mr. Sharma has
submitted that out of seven occasions, on six occasions the demand was
not verified. Accused No.2 is not public servant. Accused No.1 has not
demanded any bribe. House search of the accused persons is done. The
press note issued by the ACB is in contravention to the FIR.
8.

As per the facts of prosecution case, prima­facie, complicity
of applicants/accused with the offence is seen through the case record.
The applicants/accused were caught red­handed while accepting bribe
..4..
of Rs.3,000/­. The amount is recovered and all panchnamas are done.
The veracity of prosecution evidence would be tested at the time of trial.
9.

It is to be decided as to whether the physical custody of the
applicants/accused
is
necessary
during
the
course
of
pending
investigation. It is seen from the record that sufficient opportunity for
custodial interrogation of the applicants/accused is already granted to
the ACB. Accused persons were in P.C.R. since 07.04.2022 to
11.04.2022. The voice sample of applicants/accused are taken.
Panchanamas are drawn. Therefore, there are no circumstances in the
Say of Investigating Officer to infer that the investigation is to be done
with the aid of applicants/accused, hereinafter. The amount of Rs.
3000/­ is recovered.
10.

The apprehension of prosecution is pertaining to alleged
tampering of evidence at the hands of applicants/accused.

In that
regard, there is nothing in the Say of Investigating Officer that the
applicants/accused have any previous criminal record or having criminal
antecedents to their discredit. They are residing on the given address at
Mumbai and Thane respectively. Therefore, by imposing certain terms
and conditions on the applicants/accused, the objection of the
prosecution can be taken care of.
11.

As bail is the rule and jail is an exception, considering the
facts of case and the role of applicants/accused in pending investigation
with regard to their criminal antecedents, they are entitled to be
released on bail on certain terms and conditions. No purpose would be
served by keeping them behind bars. There are no exceptional
circumstances pointed out by the prosecution to reject the bail plea of
the applicants/accused. Resultantly, I answer Point No. 1 in the
affirmative and with regard to Point No. 2, I proceed to pass the
following order :­
..5..

ORDER
1. ACB
Bail
Application
No.

237
of
2022
filed
by
applicants/original accused no.1 Dr. Sandeep Ravindra
Gaikwad and Accused No.2 Sachin Mahadeo Kokitkar in ACB
Remand Application No. 365/2022 (C.R. No. 24/2022) is
hereby allowed.
2. The applicants/accused shall be released on their executing
PB and SB of Rs. 25,000/­ each (Rupees Twenty­five
Thousand Only), with one or more sureties for each accused
in the like amount.
3. The applicants/accused shall furnish their mobile/landline
number, the mobile/landline numbers of their two close
relatives/friends and their family members, who are residing
preferably in Mumbai, along with their residential proofs to
the concerned police station and shall not change their
contact details till conclusion of trial.
4. The applicant/accused shall also produce the proof of their
identity and proof of residence, at the time of executing bail
bond.
5. The applicants/accused shall not contact the informant and
prosecution witnesses in any manner and will not tamper
with the prosecution evidence.
6. The applicants/accused shall co­operate with the police
during investigation. They shall attend the concerned police
station every Thursday and Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. to
12.00 noon, till filing of the charge­sheet.

..6..
7. The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
8. The applicants/accused shall not commit any offence while
on bail.
9. Provisional cash bail of Rs.25,000/­ for each accused, total
Rs. 50,000/­ is accepted, in lieu of executing surety bonds, as
per Section 445 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for a
period of next four weeks. Surety be complied till then.
10. Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused is directed to inform
the
above
conditions
to
the
applicant/accused
for
compliance.
11. In case of breach/default of any of the above condition by the
applicants/accused, it would be viewed seriously and it
would
entail
cancellation
of
bail
granted
to
the
filed
by
applicants/accused.
12. ACB
Bail
Application
No.

237/2022
applicants/original accused no.1 Dr. Sandeep Ravindra
Gaikwad and Accused No.2 Sachin Mahadeo Kokitkar in ACB
Remand Application No. 365/2022 (C.R. No. 24/2022)
stands disposed of accordingly.

(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.)

NAIKNIMBALKAR
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
Date:­12/04/2022
Dictated on
:
Transcribed on
Signed on
:
:
Digitally signed by
NAIKNIMBALKAR
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
Date: 2022.04.13
15:40:10 +0530
(S. P. NAIK­NIMBALKAR)
Special Judge under P.C. Act,
City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay
at Mumbai.
12/04/2022
12/04/2022
12/04/2022
..7..

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
13/04/2022 at 4:40 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Mrs. M. M. Kadam
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.

H.H.J. Shri. S. P. Naik­Nimbalkar
(Court Room No. 46)
)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 13/04/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
13/04/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
13/04/2022