Order
.. 1 ..

ACB Bail Application No. 76/2022
CNR No. MHCC02-001641-2022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
ACB BAIL APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2022
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO. 116 OF 2022
(Earlier ACB Remand Application No. 87 of 2022)
Mr. Sanjeev Honaji Nimbalkar,
Age:50 years, Occupation:Service,
Residing at Ganesh Tower, Murbad Road,
Chikanghar, Opp. Lourdes High School,
Kalyan D.C., Thane,
Maharashtra-421 301.

)
)
)
)
)
)
Applicant/Orig. Accd.
No. 2
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B., Mumbai
vide C. R. No. 3/2022).

)
)
)
Respdt./Complainant
Appearances :
Mrs. Snehal A. Thorat, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/orig. accused no. 2.
Mr. S.E. Soshte, Ld. A.P.P. for the State/Respondent/ACB.
CORAM:
DATED:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT, 1988
S. P. NAIK-NIMBALKAR,
(C.R. No. 46).
10th February, 2022.

:ORAL ORDER:
The application is filed by the applicant/original accused
no. 2 Mr. Sanjeev Honaji Nimbalkar under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C.” for short) for releasing him on
..2..
bail. He is in Judicial Custody since 09/02/2022. The offence under
Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act”
for short) is filed vide C.R. No. 3/2022 by the ACB.
2.

The gist of prosecution case is that the informant Abdul
Rafiq Qadar Shaikh is a resident of Girgaon, Mumbai.

His cousin
brother Sajid Shaikh was caught with a chit of ‘matka’ in his pocket by
applicant/accused no. 2 Public Servant Mr. Sanjeev Honaji Nimbalkar.
He was taken to Dongri Police Station. Demand of bribe of Rs. 50,000/was made from him by both accused persons.

The informant
approached ACB. After doing requisite formalities, on 27/01/2022 the
complaint was taken.

Demand was verified.

It was told to the
informant to give the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the accused no. 1
Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri.

After completion of necessary
formalities of pre-trap panchanama, trap was laid. It was successful.
The accused no. 1 Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri was caught redhanded while accepting demand of bribe Rs. 18,000/-. Alongwith the
belongings an amount of Rs. 20,500/-, was seized from him.

The
applicant/accused no. 2 was caught from the spot. During his medical
examination, before arrest, he was tested Covid positive and therefore,
was admitted in the hospital. He was later on arrested on 05/02/2022
and booked in the crime.
3.

The grounds on which bail is sought are that, the applicant/
accused is innocent and is falsely implicated. Nothing is recovered at his
instance.

There are no criminal antecedents.

He has been made a
scape-got in the foul played by the original complainant.
custody is not required.

Investigation is completed.

Further
His family is
dependent on him. There is no prima-facie evidence against him. He is
ready to abide with all the conditions, if any, imposed by this Court.
Hence, it is prayed to release him on bail.

..3..

4.

Notice was issued to the State/ACB. The prosecution has
opposed the bail application by filing Say at Exh-2. The objection of the
prosecution is that investigation is incomplete. If the applicant/accused
is released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence. Investigation
pertaining to furniture of Rs. 15,14,000/- and cash amount of Rs.
8,000/- found at the residence of applicant/accused, is to be done. Gold
ornaments total 13.5 tolas are also found at his residence. Interrogation
pertaining to the other suspects in this crime, is yet to be done. The
applicant/accused would flee and there would be no threat in the minds
of erring public servants, if the applicant/accused is released on bail.
Hence, bail may be rejected.
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 applicant/accused is 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 Mrs. Snehal Thorat for the applicant/accused
and Ld. A.P.P. Mr. S. E. Soshte for the State/ACB have submitted as per
their respective contentions.

..4..
8.

As per the facts of prosecution case, prima-facie, complicity
of applicant/accused with the offence is seen through the case record.
The applicant/accused was caught on the platform of Sandhust Railway
Station. The amount of Rs. 18,000/- is found with accused Mohd. Ali
Wali Mohd. Mansoori. It is alleged that he has accepted the same for the
applicant/accused. Accused Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansoori is granted
bail by this Court vide Bail Order dated 01/02/2022. It is submitted
that the role of applicant/accused and that of accused Mohd. Ali Wali
Mohd. Mansoori are not distinguishable and therefore, grounds of parity
are available to the applicant/accused.
9.

In the given set of circumstances and facts, it is to be
decided as to whether the physical custody of the applicant/accused is
necessary during the course of pending investigation. It is seen from the
record that sufficient opportunity for custodial interrogation of the
applicant/accused is already granted to the ACB. The applicant/accused
was in P.C.R. since 06/02/2022 to 09/02/2022. The voice sample of
applicant/accused is taken. Panchanamas are drawn. The amount used
as bribe is collected. So also, the furniture, gold and cash amount of Rs.
8,000/- from the house of applicant/accused, are seized. Therefore, the
need and necessity of physical custody of the applicant/accused quapending investigation, are not warranted.
10.

The apprehension of prosecution is pertaining to alleged
tampering of evidence at the hands of applicant/accused and pending
investigation. In that regard, there is nothing in the Say of Investigating
Officer that the applicant/accused has any previous criminal record or is
having criminal antecedents to his discredit.
11.

There are no emerging circumstances to derive a conclusion
of interference in investigation at the hands of applicant/accused. The
..5..
ancillary and incidental places and witnesses connected with this crime
are within the jurisdiction of Dongri Police Station.

It is a fact of
common knowledge that generally after custody of 48 hours, the public
servants in ACB Trap Cases are usually suspended. It is submitted by Ld.
Advocate Mrs. Snehal Thorat for the applicant/accused that the
applicant/accused has been suspended when he was in the hospital
during Covid positive. Therefore, the possibility of applicant/accused
entering the Dongri Police Station and exercising his influence in the
capacity of a Police Officer in that area, is remote. He is residing on the
given address at Kalyan-West, District-Thane. Therefore, by imposing
certain terms and conditions on the applicant/accused, the apprehension
of the prosecution of tampering, can be taken care of. Attendance can
be given, which would suffice the purpose of prosecution.
12.

As bail is the rule and jail is an exception, considering the
facts of case and the role of applicant/accused in pending investigation
with regard to his criminal antecedents, he is entitled to be released on
bail on certain terms and conditions. No purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars.

There are no exceptional circumstances
pointed out by the prosecution to reject the bail plea of the
applicant/accused. Resultantly, I answer Point No. 1 in the affirmative
and with regard to Point No. 2, I proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
1.
ACB Bail Application No. 76/2022 filed by
applicant/original accused no. 2 Mr. Sanjeev Honaji Nimbalkar in ACB
Remand Application No. 116/2022 (Earlier ACB Remand Application
No. 87/2022) (C.R. No. 3/2022) is hereby allowed.
2.
The applicant/accused shall be released on his executing
PB and SB of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only), with
one or more sureties in the like amount.
3.
number,
The applicant/accused shall furnish his mobile/landline
the mobile/landline numbers of his two close
..6..
relatives/friends and his family members, who are residing preferably
in Mumbai or Thane, along with their residential proofs to the
concerned police station and shall not change his contact details till
conclusion of trial.
4.
The applicant/accused shall also produce the proof of his
identity and proof of residence in Mumbai, at the time of executing
bail bond.
5.
The applicant/accused shall not contact the informant
and prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence. He shall not enter the local jurisdiction of
Dongri and Pydhonie Police Stations till the completion of
investigation, except the attendance given.
6.
The applicant/accused shall co-operate with the police
during investigation. He shall attend the concerned police station
every Thursday in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, till filing of the
charge-sheet.
7.
The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
8.
The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence
while on bail.
9.
Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused is directed to
inform the above conditions to the applicant/accused for compliance.
10.
In case of breach/default of any of the above condition by
the applicant/accused, it would be viewed seriously and it would
entail cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.
11.
ACB Bail Application No. 76/2022 filed by
applicant/original accused no. 2 Mr. Sanjeev Honaji Nimbalkar in ACB
Remand Application No. 116/2022 (Earlier ACB Remand Application
No. 87/2022) (C.R. No. 3/2022) stands disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.)

Date:-10/02/2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Sent to Dept. on
:
:
:
:
(S. P. NAIK-NIMBALKAR)
Special Judge under P.C. Act,
City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay
at Mumbai.
10/02/2022
10/02/2022
10/02/2022
..7..

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
10/02/2022 at 4:15 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Gitalaxmi R. Mohite
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.

H.H.J. Shri. S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar
(Court Room No. 46)
)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 10/02/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
10/02/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
10/02/2022