Mumbai, April 23, 2025 (Reported on March 7, 2019) – The Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Greater Bombay granted bail to Ramesh Narsaya Bendi, accused No. 2 in a bribery case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Worli, Mumbai. The case (Crime No. 13/2019) involves charges under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The order was pronounced on March 7, 2019, by the Honorable Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda (Court Room No. 54) after hearing arguments from both the applicant’s counsel and the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State.

The Prosecution’s Allegation:

The prosecution’s case against Ramesh Narsaya Bendi stems from allegations that he acted in collusion with Sumedh Sarkate, a constable in the Excise Department. According to the prosecution, Constable Sarkate had demanded a bribe from an informant in exchange for a Tadi (toddy) license. The prosecution further alleged that Bendi, acting on the constable’s instructions, accepted the bribe amount. Following a trap laid by the ACB based on the informant’s complaint, both Bendi and Constable Sarkate were apprehended on February 28, 2019. Bendi has been in custody since his arrest, leading him to seek bail.

Defense Arguments for Bail:

Mr. S.D. Beloskar, the learned advocate representing the applicant, Ramesh Narsaya Bendi, argued for his client’s release on bail. He pointed out that the alleged bribe money had already been recovered by the authorities, implying that there was nothing further to be recovered from his client. Mr. Beloskar also highlighted that Bendi had already been remanded to judicial custody, suggesting that his further detention served no purpose. He assured the court that his client was prepared to adhere to any conditions the court might impose while granting bail and urged the court to grant the application.

Prosecution’s Opposition to Bail:

The prosecution, represented by the learned APP Mr. Ramesh, opposed the bail application. The grounds for opposition included the pending nature of the investigation, the fact that statements from some witnesses were yet to be recorded, the seriousness of the offense, and the assertion that some documents and other evidence were still to be collected. The prosecution argued that releasing the applicant at this stage could impede the ongoing investigation.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda, after considering the arguments and perusing the case papers, noted that Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under which the applicant was also charged, is not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Acknowledging the concerns raised by the prosecution regarding the ongoing investigation and potential influence on witnesses, the court stated that these concerns could be addressed by imposing necessary conditions while granting bail. The court expressed the view that it did not find it necessary to further detain the applicant.

Consequently, the court decided to direct the applicant not to directly or indirectly contact the prosecution’s witnesses and to attend the ACB office periodically.

The Final Order:

The court passed the following order:

(1) The applicant, Ramesh Narsaya Bendi, shall be released on a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of ₹25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties of a like amount. Upon the request of the applicant’s advocate, a provisional cash surety of the said amount was accepted for a period of four weeks.

(2) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly contact or influence the prosecution’s witnesses.

(3) The applicant shall attend the ACB office, Worli, Mumbai, between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on every alternate Tuesday, commencing from March 19, 2019, until the filing of the charge-sheet or final report, whichever is earlier.

With these conditions, the bail application was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on March 7, 2019, and the certified true copy of the signed order was uploaded on March 8, 2019, at 5:30 p.m.

This order granting bail to the accused highlights the court’s balancing act between the need for investigation and the individual’s right to liberty, especially in cases where the offense does not carry the most severe punishments and conditions can be imposed to safeguard the investigation process. The case will now likely proceed with further investigation and the eventual filing of a charge-sheet.