Mumbai, April 1, 2022 – The Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Deepak D. Almale (C.R. No. 45), rejected the successive bail application of Bharat Laxman Mundhe, a 33-year-old Police Sub-Inspector, who was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 13 of 2022 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Worli, Mumbai, under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The order was passed in ACB Bail Application No. 188 of 2022, arising from ACB Remand Application No. 249 of 2022.

Mundhe was arrested on March 11, 2022. His previous bail application was rejected by the same court on March 14, 2022. In the present application, Mundhe argued that as of March 14, 2022, almost the entire material investigation was complete, rendering his further detention unnecessary. He claimed false implication and the absence of prima facie evidence against him, stating his willingness to abide by any imposed terms and conditions if granted bail.

The prosecution strongly objected to the application, filing a detailed reply (Exh. 2) contending that Mundhe’s release on bail would create a strong possibility of him pressuring the complainant and other witnesses. The Ld. APP argued for the dismissal of the application due to the lack of any change in circumstances since the previous rejection.

The court heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the accused, the Ld. APP, and the Investigation Officer.

The defense counsel submitted that the statements of witnesses had already been recorded, making further detention unnecessary. He argued that the alleged offenses under Sections 7 and 7A of the PC Act are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, entitling the accused to bail. He relied on rulings in Khemlo Sakharam Sawant V/s. State, Bhagirathsinh Judeja V/s. State of Gujarat, and Mohan Raikwar V/s. State of M.P. to support his arguments.

The court, however, considered the submissions and reviewed the case papers. It noted that the first bail application was rejected on March 14, 2022, citing the accused’s involvement, acceptance of a bribe of ₹5,00,000/-, the seriousness of the case, the ongoing investigation, and the possibility of Mundhe tampering with prosecution witnesses and threatening the complainant.

The court then examined whether any change in circumstances justified granting bail. While the defense claimed that witness statements had been recorded after March 14, 2022, this fact was absent in the bail application itself. The Investigation Officer (I.O.) submitted that the investigation was still ongoing and the statements of some witnesses were yet to be recorded. The I.O.’s reply (Exh. 2) specifically mentioned the possibility of Mundhe pressuring prosecution witnesses if released, implying that not all witness statements had been recorded and that the effective investigation process was still underway.

Regarding the rulings cited by the accused, the court distinguished them from the present case. In Khemlo Sawant, bail was initially refused due to a co-accused being absconding, and the High Court observed that this was not a sufficient ground to refuse bail, especially when the principal offender was not booked, and the applicant was merely charged with abatement. In the present case, Mundhe was the main accused and a serving Police Sub-Inspector at the time of the offense.

In Bhagirathsinh Judeja, the Supreme Court ruled that the material considerations for granting bail are the accused’s availability for trial and the likelihood of them abusing their liberty by tampering with evidence. In the present case, the I.O. specifically objected to bail in Exh. 2 due to the possibility of Mundhe pressuring witnesses. Given his role and position at the time of the offense, the court found a strong possibility of such pressure.

In Mohan Raikwar, the accused was charged with offenses under Sections 323, 294, and 506 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, which the court deemed less serious than the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act that Mundhe was charged with. Therefore, the ruling was not considered applicable.

Based on the aforementioned reasons and discussion, the court concluded that there was no change in circumstances that would entitle Mundhe to bail. Finding no substance in the contentions raised by the applicant/accused and considering the ongoing investigation, the court deemed it not a fit case to grant bail.

Consequently, the court passed the order rejecting Bail Application No. 188/2022.

This order underscores the court’s reluctance to grant bail in corruption cases, especially when the accused holds a position of authority and the investigation is still underway, with a clear potential for the accused to influence witnesses. The court prioritized the integrity of the investigation and the safety of witnesses over the accused’s plea for release, even in a successive bail application.