Mumbai, April 23, 2025 (Reported on March 7, 2017) – A Special CBI Court in Greater Bombay today rejected the regular bail application of Pramod Kumar, an Inspector with the Central Fertilizer Quality Control & Training Institute (CFQC&TI) in Faridabad. Mr. Kumar was arrested in connection with a bribery case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The order was pronounced by the Honorable Special Judge for CBI/Additional Sessions Judge Shri. Hemant S. Mahajan (CR No. 51) after hearing arguments from both the defense and the prosecution.

The Allegations:

According to the prosecution’s case, the matter originated from a written complaint lodged on February 24, 2017, by Mr. Shrikant Mehta, a resident of Kandivali, Mumbai. Mr. Mehta alleged that his nephew, Shreyas Desai, proprietor of M/s. Drishti Agencies, a firm acting as all-India distributors/agents for overseas fertilizer manufacturers, was being extorted for illegal gratification.

The complaint specifically named Mr. Pramod Kumar, the applicant, alleging that he had demanded ₹2 lakhs on behalf of Dr. Shailendra Singh, Director of CFQC&TI, Faridabad. The alleged bribe was to ensure that future consignments of sulphur, imported by various companies in India through different ports (for whom M/s. Drishti Agencies acts as an agent for M/s. Sohar Sulphur Fertilizer LLC, Oman), would not face any issues regarding quality control sampling. Furthermore, Mr. Pramod allegedly instructed Mr. Mehta to arrange for his stay and return travel to Gandhidham.

Verification and Arrest:

Subsequent verification proceedings conducted by the CBI on February 24 and 25, 2017, reportedly involved the recording of conversations between the applicant, Mr. Pramod Kumar, and the complainant. The prosecution claims that these recordings revealed a demand for ₹50,000 and ₹16,000 as illegal gratification related to previously passed samples, along with a demand of ₹4,000 per container for future consignments. These demands were allegedly made by Mr. Kumar for himself and on behalf of Dr. Shailendra Singh.

The prosecution further alleged that Mr. Kumar provided his brother-in-law’s bank account details to Mr. Mehta, instructing him to transfer the amounts of ₹50,000 and ₹16,000 into that account. Additionally, he allegedly demanded ₹7,600 to cover his flight ticket expenses, requesting this amount to be deposited into his personal bank account.

The prosecution stated that on March 1, 2017, ₹7,500 was deposited into Mr. Kumar’s personal account, purportedly towards the flight ticket and other charges, and ₹16,000 was deposited into his brother-in-law’s account, allegedly linked to the ₹4,000 per container demand for the previously cleared samples. The prosecution claims that a subsequent recorded conversation confirmed these deposits as bribe payments.

Following these developments, Mr. Pramod Kumar was arrested on March 2, 2017, and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Faridabad, who granted transit remand until March 6, 2017. He was subsequently produced before the Special CBI Court in Mumbai.

Applicant’s Plea for Bail:

In his bail application (Bail Application No. 134 of 2017), Mr. Kumar, represented by his advocate Mr. Kuldeep Patil, claimed innocence and asserted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. His counsel argued that since the period of police custody was over, no further custodial investigation was necessary. He emphasized that the alleged offense was not punishable with capital punishment and that Mr. Kumar is a permanent resident of Faridabad who would cooperate fully with the investigating agency if released on bail.

Mr. Patil further submitted that his client was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court and would make himself available for investigation as and when required. He also assured the court that Mr. Kumar would not tamper with any prosecution evidence if granted bail. Based on these grounds, the applicant sought to be enlarged on regular bail.

Prosecution’s Strong Opposition:

The prosecution, represented by learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Mr. Omprakash, vehemently opposed the bail application. In their detailed reply, the prosecution argued that the investigation was at a crucial and preliminary stage. They contended that granting bail to the applicant at this juncture would prejudice the ongoing investigation.

The prosecution highlighted the influential position held by Mr. Kumar and submitted that his release on bail could create significant hurdles in the further investigation. They expressed serious concerns about the possibility of the applicant influencing prosecution witnesses and tampering with evidence. The prosecution emphasized that key witnesses related to the case were yet to be examined and that the applicant’s release could jeopardize this process. Considering the complexity of the matter and the current stage of investigation, the prosecution urged the court to reject the bail application.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

After considering the facts, arguments presented by both sides, and the material available on record, Special Judge Shri. Hemant S. Mahajan framed the central point for consideration: whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail. The court answered this in the negative.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that the alleged offense did not carry a capital punishment. However, it emphasized that the case was at the remand stage and the recorded conversations suggested the potential involvement of other individuals. The court noted the prosecution’s submission that the investigation was ongoing and crucial witnesses were yet to be examined.

The court also took cognizance of the fact that police custody had been granted to facilitate the verification of the applicant’s bank accounts. It opined that with the statements of witnesses yet to be recorded, it was not advisable to release the applicant on bail.

The Special Judge found merit in the prosecution’s apprehension that if the applicant were released on bail, there was a strong possibility of him influencing witnesses, which would be prejudicial to the ongoing investigation.

Interestingly, the court mentioned that during the arguments, it had suggested to the applicant’s counsel to wait for seven days, after which the court would reconsider the bail request. The prosecution had also reportedly echoed this sentiment. However, the applicant’s counsel pressed for an immediate order on the merits of the application.

Ultimately, the court concluded that based on the material currently available, it was not a fit stage to consider granting bail to the applicant. The court underscored that matters related to corruption should not be treated lightly and that the prosecution should be given an adequate opportunity to delve into the root of the matter and collect evidence against all concerned accused.

Final Order:

In light of the aforementioned reasons, the Special Judge for CBI/Additional Sessions Judge Shri. Hemant S. Mahajan (CR No. 51) passed the order, rejecting and disposing of Bail Application No. 134 of 2017.

The order was dictated, transcribed, and signed on March 7, 2017, and subsequently uploaded online on the same day at 5:35 pm.

This order signifies a setback for Pramod Kumar and underscores the court’s cautious approach in corruption cases, especially when the investigation is at a preliminary stage and the potential for witness tampering remains a significant concern. The case is likely to proceed with further investigation by the CBI, and the involvement of other individuals, including the alleged role of Dr. Shailendra Singh, Director of CFQC&TI, Faridabad, will likely be a key focus.