CBI BA­657/22
1
MHCC020138912022
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 657/2022
(Case No.RC 0262022A0016 of CBI, ACB, Mumbai)
Sonu Bura s/o. Kuldeep Singh
…Applicant/Accused
V/s
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
….Respondent.
CORAM:
DATED:
S.P.NAIK­NIMBALKAR
SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
(COURT ROOM NO.51)
14.10.2022.

Ld. Adv. Mr Zishan Quazi for accused.
Ld. PP Mr.Soni for CBI/ACB.
ORAL ORDER
1.

Accused Sonu Bura s/o. Kuldeep Singh has filed bail
application u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. An FIR bearing CR RC0262022A0016
came to be registered by the CBI, ACB, Mumbai on 7.10.2022 u/s. 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (As amended in 2018) (hereinafter
shall be referred to as “P.C. Act”). The accused was arrested on
7.10.2022. He was produced on 8.10.2022 before this court. He was
remanded to PCR for three days.

Thereafter, he was remanded to
judicial custody since 11.10.2022.
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, the applicant is a
public servant working as Labour Enforcement Officer in the Labour
2
CBI BA­657/22
and Enforcement Department. It is alleged that, the accused had
demanded Rs.15,000/­ from the complainant as undue advantage in
order to not to inspect the document of the company as well as to
allow smooth functioning of the company’s business. The applicant/
accused agreed to accept a reduced amount of Rs.10,000 from the
complainant. On 7.10.2022, ACB trap team laid a trap and nabbed the
accused red handed for accepting unlawful gratification of Rs.10,000.
The tainted currency notes were recovered from the office of his cabin.
3.

The bail is sought on the grounds that, the accused is
falsely implicated. Nothing was recovered from the residence or native
place of the accused. There was no live contract between the accused
and the complainant. The company of the complainant was not within
the jurisdiction of the applicant. Therefore, the theory of demand is
fabricated.

The applicant cannot be kept in custody.

There is no
evidence to support recovery of Rs.10,000/­ from the personal search of
the accused, so accepted as unlawful gratification. The accused is ready
and willing to assist the investigation agency. He would not flee. He has
roots in society. He has no criminal antecedents to his discredit. Hence,
on all these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant/ accused may be
released on bail.
4.

The CBI has submitted reply at Exh.2. CBI has strongly
opposed the bail application. The objections of the CBI are that, the
recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused also
confirms the demand. The tainted currency notes of Rs.10,000 were
recovered from the office cabin of the accused, from his packet, in
presence of the panch witnesses. The accused is a public servant. There
3
CBI BA­657/22
is possibility that, if bail is granted, the accused will make efforts to
influence the complainant and other witnesses, which would be against
the interest of the fair investigation and presence of the accused in the
J.C. is required for completion of the investigation.
5.

Heard both sides. Ld. Adv. Mr Zishan Quazi has submitted
along the line of his contentions. He has further submitted that the
accused has to take care of his paternal uncle who is suffering from
cancer and frequently visits Mumbai for his cancer treatment.
Therefore, bail may be considered on both these grounds.
6.

Ld. PP Mr. Soni has opposed the contentions of the accused
and has submitted along the line of his submissions.
7.

It is to be decided, as to whether the accused is entitled to
be released on bail pending investigation u/s. 439 of Cr.P.C.? As per
FIR and case record, it is the case of the prosecution that, initial
demand of Rs.15,000/­ was made by the accused and later on after
negotiations it was reduced to Rs.10,000/­ and he was caught red
handed in the trap proceedings conducted by the CBI at his office on
7.10.2022.

Recovery of tainted currency notes was done from the
accused. The accused was granted three days P.C. It is on record that,
his voice samples were collected. It is also on record that, personal
search, residence search and search at his native place is done. There
are no particulars of any sort of investigation, yet pending with the
accused and for that, physical custody would not require and is not
necessary.

4
8.

CBI BA­657/22
No criminal antecedents of the accused are cited. The
accused is shown to be residing at Chembur, Mumbai. He has
undertaken to cooperate with the investigation agency. Thus,
considering the nature of the offence, gravity of allegations, criminal
antecedents of the accused and totality of the circumstances, a case is
made out by the accused for bail. However, considering the
apprehension of the CBI that, he would tamper with the prosecution
witnesses and evidence, certain conditions are necessary to be imposed
on him. Hence, the following order :­
ORDER
1
Bail Application No.657 of 2022 is allowed.

2
Applicant/ accused Sonu Bura s/o. Kuldeep Singh shall be
released on his executing PR and SB bond of 25,000/­ (Rs.
Twenty five thousand only), with one or two sureties in the
like amount.

3
The
applicant/accused
shall
furnish
his
permanent
residential proof to the CBI and shall not change his address
till conclusion of trial.
4
The applicant/accused shall also produce the proof of his
identities and proofs of residence at the time of executing
bail bonds. Accused to submit residential proof of two
relatives or local contacts, residing in Mumbai.

5
The applicant/accused shall not contact the prosecution
witnesses in any manner and will not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.

6
The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.

7
The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while on
5
CBI BA­657/22
bail.
8
Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused is directed to inform
the
above
conditions
to
the
applicant/accused
for
compliance.
9
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.

10
On request of the accused, he is directed to deposit
Rs.25,000/­ cash security in lieu of executing surety bond
u/s.445 of Cr.P.C. Office to accept the cash on proper
identification.

11
Office to accept the cash after treasury hours.

12
Applicant/accused is directed to furnish surety bond within
next four weeks.

13
Bail Application stands disposed off accordingly.
Digitally signed by
NAIKNIMBALKAR
NAIKNIMBALKAR SAMARENDRA
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO
Date: 2022.10.17
17:39:08 +0530
Date 14.10.2022
Dictated on 14.10.2022
Transcribed on 17.10.2022
Signed by HHJ on 17.10.2022
(S.P.NAIK­NIMBALKAR)
Special Judge (CBI)
Gr. Bombay (CR 51).

6
CBI BA­657/22
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Date:­17.10.2022 at 5.35 pm
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Nitin V. Ubale)
Selection Gr. Stenographer(Gr.1)
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.)

H.H.J. Shri. S. P. Naik­Nimbalkar (C.R. No. 51)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ ORDER
14.10.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on
17.10.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
17.10.2022