IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY, BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.764 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC020134812018
(In crime no.35/2018 of ACB for offence punishable under section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in R.A. No.1024/2018.)
The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of A.C.B. (The service
through P.P. Office, Sessions Court,
Mumbai.
]
]
]
]
COMPLAINANT
(PROSECUTION)
]
]
]
]
ACCUSED
V/s.
Sanjeevan Govind Yadav
Aged: 52 years, R/o.: 5/A/102,
Mansarovar Complex, Sector34, Kamothe,
Navi Mumbai.
APPEARANCE:
Mr. S.E. Soshthe, APP for the Complainant/State.
Mr. Arun Das, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
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 :
25th October, 2018.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
The applicant is a public servant.
He is a Clerk in the
F/South Ward of the B.M.C. The informant Bhupesh Pednekar has a
garment business. On 04.08.2018, Mr. Rajput – an officer of the B.M.C.,
2
inspected the informant’s premises and booked the informant for
carrying on the business without obtaining requisite trade license. On
15.10.2018, the applicant went to the informant and served the notice
issued by the B.M.C., requiring the informant to appear in Shindewadi
Court, Dadar, Mumbai, on 20.10.2018. On 17.10.2018, the applicant
discussed with the informant and demanded Rs.15,000/ towards the
penalty and Rs.2,000/ as bribe to get that case disposed off, Rs.5,000/
as bribe to delete the names of the workers from the case. Thus, he
demanded bribe of Rs.7,000/.
On the informant’s report dated
19.10.2018, the ACB took up the matter and verified the information.
During the verification process, the applicant after negotiations by the
informant, reduced his demand to Rs.6,000/. The ACB caught him red
handed for accepting bribe of Rs.6,000/ and the penalty of
Rs.15,000/. The ACB registered offence vide crime no.35/2018 for an
offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 as amended in 2018. The applicant was arrested on the same day.
Now he is in judicial custody. Hence, he is seeking bail.
2.
The prosecution filed reply and opposed the bail. I heard
the learned advocate for the applicant and the learned additional public
prosecutor. I have gone through the case papers.
3.
The applicant’s learned advocate argued that the trap
proceeding has been completed. The amount has been recovered. The
applicant has been already remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, the
custodial detention of the applicant is no more required. The applicant
is ready to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the Court.
Thus, he argued for granting bail.
3
4.
The investigating officer, mentioned the grounds that if the
applicant is released on bail, because of his influence, it would be
difficult to collect evidence.
He can pressurize the witnesses.
The
investigation is at preliminary stage.
5.
The learned additional public prosecutor argued that the
offence is serious and if the bail is granted, the applicant may tamper
with the evidence of the prosecution and influence the prosecution’s
witnesses. Thus, the prosecution urged for rejecting the application.
6.
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
any manner by the applicant. For that purpose, I propose to put a
condition of depositing cash surety, 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 applicant to
attend the ACB office twice a week for a period of six weeks. I do not
4
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 applicant be released on the following terms and conditions:
(i)
The applicant shall execute of PR Bond of Rs. 50,000/ with
one or two solvent sureties or cash surety of Rs. 25,000/.
(ii) The applicant 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. He shall deposit additional
cash surety of Rs.25,000/ 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 applicant 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 his release.
(iv) The Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation
by the I.O. as and when required.
(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous
permission of the Court.
The bail application is disposed off accordingly.
Date: 25/10/2018.
(S.V. YARLAGADDA)
Special Judge
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Greater Bombay.
Order Dictated on : 25/10/2018
Transcribed on
: 26/10/2018
Signed on
: 26/10/2018
5
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
26/10/2018 at 5.35 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
25/10/2018
Order signed by P.O. on
26/10/2018
Order uploaded on
26/10/2018