Mumbai, April 23, 2025 (Reported on December 1, 2018) – A Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Greater Bombay today rejected the default bail application of Tushar Jayram Sawarkar, a 34-year-old service employee residing in the J.J. Hospital compound, Byculla, Mumbai. Sawarkar is accused No. 1 in a bribery case (Crime No. 32/2018) registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai, involving offenses punishable under Sections 7, 7A, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The order was pronounced on December 1, 2018, by the Honorable Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda (Court Room No. 54) after hearing arguments from the applicant’s advocate and the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, as well as the Investigating Officer.

Background of the Case and the Bail Application:

Tushar Jayram Sawarkar was arrested and first produced before the court on October 2, 2018, in connection with the aforementioned bribery offenses. He has been in judicial custody since then. Consequently, he filed the present application seeking default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the prosecution had failed to file the charge sheet within the stipulated 60-day period.

Prosecution’s Stand:

The prosecution, in its submission, contended that there was ample evidence against the applicant to secure a conviction. They attributed the delay in filing the charge sheet to “technical and procedural formalities.” The Investigating Officer (IO) present in court stated that the investigation had been completed, the charge sheet prepared, and submitted for scrutiny and the necessary sanction for prosecution. He also submitted a copy of the charge sheet along with the remand application. The learned APP reiterated these reasons for the delay.

Defense Arguments for Default Bail:

Mr. Prakash J. Salsingikar, the learned advocate representing the applicant, argued that counting from the date of the applicant’s first production in court on October 2, 2018, December 1, 2018, marked either the 61st or at the very least the 60th day (even if the production date was excluded). He emphasized that with court hours nearing their end and the following day being a holiday, his client was entitled to default bail as the charge sheet had not been filed within the prescribed timeframe. Mr. Salsingikar specifically argued that the day of production must be included in the calculation, making it the 61st day.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides and the submissions of the Investigating Officer. Addressing the defense’s argument regarding the 61st day, the court cited the Supreme Court authority of Ravi Prakash Singh V/s. State of Bihar (AIR 2015 SC 1294). Relying on this precedent, the Special Judge held that a plain calculation of 60 days from October 2, 2018, would indeed conclude on December 1, 2018, making it the 60th day, not the 61st. Therefore, the applicant’s contention that it was the 61st day was rejected.

Regarding the submission that the charge sheet was not filed within the court hours on the 60th day and the following day being a holiday, the court clarified that office hours are not to be counted for the purpose of filing the charge sheet within the 60-day period. Since December 1, 2018, was the 60th day and the accused was already remanded to judicial custody until December 3, 2018, the court concluded that default bail could not be granted on the 60th day itself.

Consequently, the court rejected the application for default bail but granted the applicant the liberty to file a fresh application on the 61st day onwards, should the charge sheet not be filed by then.

Further Directives to the Investigating Officer:

In a separate but related directive, the court stated that it would pass a separate order on December 3, 2018, regarding the Investigating Officer’s failure to file the charge sheet within the initial 60-day period. The court also allowed the IO to file a written explanation on that date if he so desired.

Final Order:

The Special Judge passed the following final order:

“The application for default bail is rejected with liberty to file application as mentioned above.

Separate order will be passed on 03.12.2018 about the failure of the Investigating Officer to file the chargesheet. He may file his explanation in writing if he desires on that date.

The bail application is disposed off accordingly.”

The order was dictated on December 1, 2018, transcribed on December 3, 2018, signed on the same day, and uploaded online at 5:35 p.m.

This order highlights the court’s strict interpretation of the 60-day period for filing the charge sheet in cases not involving offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment. While denying default bail on the 60th day, the court kept the door open for a fresh application if the prosecution failed to file the charge sheet beyond this period and also sought an explanation for the initial delay. This indicates the court’s vigilance in ensuring timely completion of investigations while upholding the rights of the accused. The subsequent order on December 3, 2018, regarding the delay would be crucial in further understanding the court’s stance on the prosecution’s procedural aspects.