Mumbai, Maharashtra – June 15, 2022 – The Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Greater Bombay, Dr. A. A. Joglekar, has granted bail to Salim Mehboob Almelkar, a private individual accused in a bribery case (C.R. No. 29/2022) registered with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai. The order, dated June 15, 2022, allows Almelkar’s release on a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount.

Almelkar was accused under Sections 7 and 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following a complaint lodged by one Imranali Rehmat Ali Shaikh. Shaikh alleged that Almelkar approached him after he applied for a new water connection for his bungalow construction in Malwani, Mhada. According to the complaint, Almelkar offered to facilitate the legal water connection in exchange for ₹1,00,000, stating that the connection would be “extra.”

ACB Trap and Alleged Role of the Applicant

The complainant reported the demand to the ACB, which conducted a verification. During the trap laid by the ACB, the primary accused (not the applicant) allegedly demanded ₹1,00,000 and accepted ₹80,000 from the complainant, instructing that the remaining ₹20,000 be given to Almelkar. The ACB intercepted Almelkar at the scene following the successful trap and registered an offense against him and the primary accused, leading to their arrest.

Defense Argues False Implication and Applicant’s Objections to Illegal Connection

Ld. Advocate Mr. A. M. Saraogi, representing Almelkar, argued that his client was falsely implicated. He contended that the area where the complainant sought the water connection was a densely populated slum area with numerous illegal water connections. The defense further stated that Almelkar’s wife was a social worker and an ex-corporator, and that Almelkar himself had raised objections regarding the allegedly illegal water connection sought by the complainant. Mr. Saraogi submitted that Almelkar was not a public servant and had no connection with the primary accused in the capacity of a public servant. He also presented an application (Exh.B) filed by Almelkar with the Ex-Corporator’s office, purportedly highlighting his objections.

Prosecution’s Concerns About Abscondence and Involvement in Bribery

Ld. APP Ms. Geeta Nayyar, representing the State, opposed the bail application. The prosecution argued that Almelkar, being a private person, might abscond if released on bail and would not be available before the court. The prosecution further alleged that during the investigation, it was revealed that Almelkar had previously helped the accused public servant in procuring bribes.

Court Highlights Lack of Evidence Connecting Applicant to Initial Demand and Recovery

Special Judge Dr. Joglekar, after hearing both sides and perusing the application, reply, and investigation papers, noted the defense’s argument that the complainant might have falsely implicated Almelkar to avoid action against his own allegedly illegal connection. The court also pointed out the lack of any evidence on record to substantiate the prosecution’s initial theory of Almelkar meeting the complainant during a morning walk or that Almelkar was present at the time of the alleged initial demand.

The court acknowledged that while Almelkar was initially in police custody and subsequently in judicial custody, the prosecution’s primary concerns regarding abscondence and the collection of further evidence could be addressed by imposing stringent bail conditions. The court noted that voice samples of the accused were already taken, the residence of the primary accused was searched, and the tainted money was recovered from the primary accused.

Considering that Almelkar was a resident of Mumbai, the court found no significant risk of him absconding. Thus, the court concluded that Almelkar’s continued detention was not necessary and could be managed by imposing strict conditions.

Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions

Consequently, the court allowed Almelkar’s bail application, subject to the following conditions:

1. He shall furnish a P. R. bond of ₹30,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount.
2. He and his surety shall provide their respective residential addresses, mobile numbers, and email addresses.
3. He shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing information to the Court.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
5. He shall attend the ACB office in Worli, Mumbai, every Friday between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until the filing of the charge-sheet.
6. He shall surrender his passport, if any, to the investigating officer or furnish an affidavit stating he does not possess one.
7. He shall not leave Maharashtra without the permission of the court.

This order indicates that while the allegations against Almelkar are serious, the court found sufficient grounds to grant him bail, emphasizing his status as a private individual and the need to balance the interests of justice with his personal liberty, especially when the primary evidence of the initial demand and recovery did not directly implicate him. The stringent conditions imposed aim to ensure his presence during the investigation and prevent any tampering with evidence or witnesses.