Mumbai, May 6, 2017 – The Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay, Shri P. S. Tarare (C.R.NO.50), granted bail to four accused – Neeraj Agarwal, Bhaskar @ Samir Tiwari, Haresh Dharmani, and Sachin Baliram Gaikwad – in connection with a case (RC BA1/2017/A00017) registered by CBI/ACB, Mumbai, for offenses punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) r/w Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The order was passed below Exhibit Nos. 8, 9, and 10 in Remand Application No. 383 of 2017 and Bail Application No. 245 of 2017.

The prosecution opposed the bail applications, arguing that the investigation was at an initial and crucial stage, the accused might tamper with prosecution witnesses, and the offense was of a serious nature. They relied on the case of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, which outlines factors to be considered while granting bail, including the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, possibility of securing their presence, apprehension of witness tampering, and public interest.

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the accused were arrested on April 23, 2017, and were in police custody remand (PCR) until May 2, 2017 (10 days), after which they were in judicial custody (JC). They argued that the material investigation was complete, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, the offenses carried a maximum imprisonment of 7 years, and the accused were ready to abide by bail conditions. They relied on the case of Sanjay Chandra V/s. CBI, which emphasizes that the primary purpose of bail is not punitive but to secure the accused’s presence at trial while respecting the presumption of innocence.

The case against the accused was registered based on a complaint alleging a demand for illegal gratification of ₹50 lakhs, later reduced to ₹35 lakhs, for the settlement of a case. A trap was laid, and the accused were apprehended for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹4 lakhs as the first installment from the complainant.

Upon perusal of the case papers, the court noted several findings during the investigation:

• A fake CBI identity card was seized from accused No. 2, Bhaskar Tiwari @ Sameer Tiwari, identifying him as a CBI Inspector.
• A paper chit containing names and amounts in coded language was seized from Bhaskar Tiwari’s bag during the house search of accused No. 1, Neeraj Agarwal.
• Two sale deeds of ₹2,50,000/- and ₹4,00,000/- were seized from the office cabin of accused No. 1, prima facie revealing benami property.
• Investigation revealed that accused No. 3, Haresh Dharmani, had allegedly paid ₹30 lakhs as a bribe to accused No. 1, Neeraj Agarwal, through Sameer Tiwari in another case (RC6(E)/2016-BSFC, Mumbai).
• Voluminous incriminating documents were seized from the residential and official premises of the accused during searches.

However, the court also observed that this was a trap case, and the material investigation concerning the trap was complete. The offenses registered against the accused were punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, and the accused expressed their willingness to abide by bail conditions.

Considering these facts and circumstances, the court was of the opinion that the purpose of prosecution would be served by releasing the accused on bail with certain conditions.

Therefore, the court passed the following order:

1. Bail Application Exh. 8, 9, and 10 in Remand Application No. 383 of 2017 and Bail Application No. 245/2017 are allowed.
2. The accused shall be released on bail upon executing a Personal Bond (PB) of ₹50,000/- each with one solvent surety in the like amount.
3. As a condition of bail, the accused shall attend the CBI office every Monday between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until the filing of the chargesheet.
4. The accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the investigation.
5. In case of any breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
6. The Investigating Officer was informed of the order.
7. Bail Application No. 245/2017 was disposed of accordingly.

This order indicates that while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations and the initial findings of the investigation (including the fake ID and coded language), the court prioritized the completion of the trap-related investigation and the willingness of the accused to abide by conditions as grounds for granting bail. The condition of weekly attendance at the CBI office aimed to ensure their continued cooperation during the remaining investigation period before the chargesheet was filed. The court also preserved the prosecution’s right to seek cancellation of bail if the accused violated any of the imposed conditions.