Mumbai, Maharashtra – December 4, 2018 – A Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in Greater Bombay, has granted default bail to Sachin Shankar Salve, a 32-year-old service professional. Salve, accused No. 2 in Crime No. 32/2018 of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai, was booked under Sections 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration), 13(1) (criminal misconduct by a public servant), and 13(2) (punishment for criminal misconduct) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda passed the order on December 3, 2018, allowing Salve’s bail application (No. 884 of 2018) due to the prosecution’s failure to file the charge sheet within the stipulated 60-day period from his production.

Applicant Seeks Default Bail Under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

Salve’s bail application was specifically filed under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which grants an accused the right to be released on bail if the investigating agency fails to file the charge sheet within the prescribed time limit. In cases where the offense is not punishable with death or life imprisonment, this period is 60 days from the date of the accused’s first production before the Magistrate.

Prosecution’s Explanation for Delay Deemed Unsatisfactory

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) and the Investigating Officer (IO) were heard on the matter. The IO, in his explanation filed with the remand application, stated that the charge sheet had been submitted to his superior officer for scrutiny and to obtain the necessary sanction on November 28, 2018. The APP argued that the charge sheet could not be filed without these procedures being completed.

However, Special Judge Yarlagadda expressed dissatisfaction with this explanation. The court emphasized that the IO should have been aware of the accused’s right to default bail if the charge sheet was not filed by December 1, 2018 (60 days from the applicant’s first production). The IO admitted to discussing the possibility of filing the charge sheet on December 1, 2018, with his superiors but stated it was not possible.

The court opined that the IO should have expedited the investigation much earlier, as mandated under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of any record indicating that the IO had informed his superior officer on November 28, 2018, about the impending deadline for filing the charge sheet and the accused’s consequent right to default bail. While acknowledging the superior officer’s responsibility in this matter, the court found the explanation for the delay inadequate.

Reference to High Court Directive for Accountability

The court referred to the directive issued by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Bulabhai Barkaji Mhatre V/s. Shankar Barkaji Mhatre, 1999(3) Mah.L.J. 227, which necessitates recommending action against concerned officials for such delays leading to default bail. Consequently, the court directed that a copy of the order be forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, to fix responsibility for the failure to file the charge sheet within the stipulated time.

Bail Granted with Conditions Despite Seriousness of Offence

Despite granting bail due to the prosecution’s default, the court acknowledged the non-bailable nature of the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Considering the nature of the allegations and the grounds previously urged when the applicant initially sought bail, the court deemed it necessary to impose certain conditions on Salve’s release, as per Chapter 33 of the Cr.P.C.

Final Order and Conditions of Bail

The court passed the following final order:

1. Sachin Shankar Salve shall be released on a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of ₹25,000 with one or two solvent sureties or a cash surety of the like amount.
2. Salve shall not tamper with the prosecution’s evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence the prosecution’s witnesses. Any breach of this condition would render his bail liable for cancellation.
3. Salve shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required for investigation purposes.
4. A copy of the order shall be forwarded to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, to fix responsibility for the failure to file the charge sheet within 60 days and the consequent grant of default bail.
5. If Salve fails to furnish the bail, his judicial custody shall be extended until December 17, 2018.

The bail application was disposed of accordingly. This case underscores the importance of timely investigation and filing of charge sheets by law enforcement agencies and highlights the accused’s statutory right to default bail in case of such delays. The court’s directive to the ACB for accountability further emphasizes the seriousness with which such procedural lapses are viewed.