Cri.Bail Appln. No.638/2022
Radha Mahale/Palvi Vs. State.
CNR No.MHNS010024242022
ORDER BELOW EXH. 1
1.

Perused application and say. Heard ld. advocate for the
applicant and ld. APP for the State.
2.

The present application has been filed by the applicant
Radha Dinkar Mahale alias Radha Uttam Palvi. She is accused No.1
in C.R.No.63/2022 registered with Abhona Police Station, Nashik
for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
3.

It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that
the applicant has not committed any offence. She is a resident of
Abhona therefore, there are no chances of absconding. She will not
contact or pressurise any witness. She does not have any criminal
antecedents. She is ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by
the Court and to cooperate with the I.O. She has two sons, one is 9
years old and the other is 3 ½ years old. The younger son is not
able to live without his mother and therefore, the applicant may be
released on bail.
4.

Ld. advocate for the applicant argued that the applicant
has not committed any offence and she has been falsely implicated.
The present offence is not about acceptance for bribe and it is only
for the alleged demand for bribe. The Anti Corruption Bureau had
2
Cri.Bail Appln. No.638/2022
Order below Exh.1
set a trap twice, however, the applicant was not caught accepting
bribe. Her younger son is 3 ½ years old. He has taken ill since the
applicant has been arrested. He has relied upon the medical
certificate produced on record. He argued that if the applicant is
released she will not abscond, she will not pressurise the witnesses
and will abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court. He
submitted that the applicant may be released on bail.
5.

The say of the I.O. and learned APP was called for. The
I.O. has filed her say through the learned APP. Ld. APP has adopted
the say filed by the I.O. They have opposed the bail application on
the grounds that if the applicant is released on bail, she may
pressurise the informant and the witnesses. The statements of the
witnesses are yet to be recorded. If released, the applicant will not
have any regard for Law. They submitted that the application may
be rejected.
6.

Ld. APP argued in consonance with the say filed by the
I.O. and submitted that the offence is serious in nature. The
applicant demanded illegal gratification from the informant. It is
not the case of one time demand. The applicant had asked the
informant to give her a certain amount (‘Hafta’) periodically in
order to allow him to continue his business. She submitted that the
investigation is still going on. The statements of the witnesses are
yet to be recorded. If released, the applicant may pressurise the
informant or other witnesses. She prayed that the application may
be rejected.

3
7.

Cri.Bail Appln. No.638/2022
Order below Exh.1
As per the FIR and the material before the Court, it can
be seen that the allegations against the applicant are that she had
demanded illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/­ from the informant in
order to allow him to continue his business. His tractor was
withheld in order to compel him to pay the said amount. He
somehow managed to arrange for Rs.10,000/­ out of the above
demanded amount and only after he paid the amount, his tractor
was released. Therefore, it does not appear that it is a case of mere
demand and not a case of acceptance. As per the submissions of ld.
APP and the police papers, it can be seen that the applicant had not
only demanded the amount once but she expected the informant to
pay some amount periodically i.e. ‘Hafta’. The offence is serious in
nature. The investigation has just commenced. The informant is a
common man. The applicant on the other hand is a public servant
and is in a position to dominate or pressurise him.
8.

In Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi
Administration) AIR, 1978 SC 179, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid
down that, the considerations while deciding a bail application are
the nature and gravity of the offence, the position and status of the
accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses. The
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice or repeating the
offence, the history of the case etc. In the present case, as
mentioned above, the applicant is in a position to dominate or
pressurise the informant. The likelihood of tampering with the
evidence or influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to release the applicant on
bail. Considering the above, I proceed to pass following order :­
4
Cri.Bail Appln. No.638/2022
Order below Exh.1
ORDER
The application stands rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
SANGEETA
NARAYAN
BHALERAO
Date : 21/05/2022
Place: Nashik
Digitally signed
by SANGEETA
NARAYAN
BHALERAO
Date:
2022.05.21
17:11:01 +0530
(S.N.Bhalerao)
I/c Addl. Sessions Judge,
Nashik