IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY, BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.756 OF 2018
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.998 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC020133642018
(In crime no.30 of 2018 of ACB.)
Sudhir Mansaram Bhalerao
Aged: 46 years.
]
]
APPLICANT
(ACCUSED)
V/s.
The Assistant Commissioner / Inspector
of Police, A.C.B. G.M.U., Worli,
Mumbai – 400 018.
]
]
]
RESPONDENT
(PROSECUTION)
APPEARANCE:
Mr. Vijay K. Shelar, Advocate for the Applicant/Accused.
Mr. S.E. Soshthe, APP for the Respondent.
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 :
24th October, 2018.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
The informant Omprakash retired as a senior clerk from
M.D. College, which comes under the office of Deputy Director, Higher
Education, Mumbai. The applicant has been working as an Assistant
Account’s Officer in the said office.
The informant was to get the
amount of leave encashment from the M.D. College.
It was to be
2
granted by the office of the applicant. Ajay Rane (coaccused) has been
working as a Registrar of the M.D. College.
The informant made
application on 27.06.2017 to get his leave encashment amount. Even
after many visits to the M.D. College and the office of the applicant, he
could not get that amount. Ajay Rane told him that the applicant would
do the work of the informant, if the informant paid Rs.5,000/. After
negotiations, Ajay Rane told that the applicant demanded Rs.12,000/
as bribe for that work. The informant lodged report with the ACB on
21.07.2018. On 15.10.2018, the ACB laid a trap and caught Ajay Rane
red handed accepting Rs.15,000/ from the informant. When Ajay Rane
made phone call to the applicant and informed said acceptance, the
applicant okayed the deal. After completion of the formalities, in the
night of 15.10.2018, the ACB arrested the applicant as well as Ajay
Rane. Now the applicant is in judicial custody. Hence, he filed this bail
application.
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 applicant
is a public servant and has a permanent address. He is the only earning
member of his family. The house search of the applicant did not yield
any incriminating material. The applicant will not interfere with the
witnesses or with the course of justice. The alleged bribe amount has
already been recovered.
The applicant has been already taken into
judicial custody. Most of the investigation is completed. Hence, there is
no need to detain the applicant in custody. He is ready to abide by the
3
conditions which may be imposed by the Court. The applicant is a
diabetic patient. Thus, he argued for grant of bail.
4.
The learned additional public prosecutor argued that the
offences are of serious nature.
The applicant may tamper with the
prosecutions evidence. He may threaten the prosecution’s witnesses.
The investigating officer quoted the grounds that the investigation is at
preliminary stage and the applicant may bring hurdles in the
investigation. He is unlikely to cooperate with the investigating officer
after his release. Recording of statements of witnesses is incomplete.
Thus, the prosecution urged for rejection of the bail.
5.
Upon considering the material so far collected by the
investigating officer, I find prima facie evidence showing the
involvement of the applicant in the offence punishable under section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Taking into consideration
the purpose of bringing such legislation, demand of bribe is a serious
offence, though it is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Statements of some of the witnesses are yet to be recorded. In such
cases, the informant and other prosecution witnesses become vulnerable
to the influence of public servant accused, when he is released on bail.
Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that such things do not happen. For
that purpose, necessary conditions can be imposed. Hence, I propose to
put a condition of depositing cash surety for that purpose.
6.
The trap proceeding was completed.
The bribe amount
also was recovered. Therefore, I believe that the part of collection of
material evidence has been completed.
I also propose to direct the
applicant to attend the ACB office twice a week for the period of six
4
weeks.
This will be in addition to the requirement of the ACB to
summon the applicant whenever necessary for the purpose of
investigation. 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 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 11.00am to
12.00pm 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 IO 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: 24/10/2018.
Order Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
:
:
:
(S.V. YARLAGADDA)
Special Judge
Under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Greater Bombay.
24/10/2018
25/10/2018
25/10/2018
5
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
25/10/2018 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
24/10/2018
Order signed by P.O. on
25/10/2018
Order uploaded on
25/10/2018