Mumbai, February 10, 2022 – The Special Judge, constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for Greater Bombay at Mumbai, has granted conditional bail to Mr. Sanjeev Honaji Nimbalkar, a 50-year-old police officer, who was arrested in a bribery case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai, under C. R. No. 3/2022. The order was passed in ACB Bail Application No. 76 of 2022, which was filed in connection with ACB Remand Application No. 116 of 2022 (earlier ACB Remand Application No. 87 of 2022).

Mr. Nimbalkar, residing in Kalyan, Thane, was in judicial custody since February 9, 2022. He is accused along with another individual, Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri, of demanding a bribe of ₹50,000 from an informant, Abdul Rafiq Qadar Shaikh, to release his cousin brother who was allegedly caught with a ‘matka’ chit by Mr. Nimbalkar.

According to the prosecution’s case, the informant’s cousin, Sajid Shaikh, was apprehended by Mr. Nimbalkar and taken to Dongri Police Station. Subsequently, both accused allegedly demanded the bribe. The informant then approached the ACB, and after due verification, a trap was laid on January 27, 2022. During the trap, Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri was caught red-handed while accepting ₹18,000 of the demanded bribe. An additional ₹20,500 was seized from him. Mr. Nimbalkar was present at the location (Sandhurst Railway Station platform) and was also apprehended. Following his medical examination, he tested positive for Covid-19 and was initially admitted to the hospital before being formally arrested on February 5, 2022.

The grounds for seeking bail included the applicant’s claim of innocence and false implication, the absence of any recoveries made directly from him, his lack of criminal antecedents, and the assertion that he was being made a scapegoat. The defense argued that further custody was unnecessary as the investigation was purportedly complete, and his family was dependent on him. They contended that there was no prima facie evidence against him and that he was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The prosecution opposed the bail, citing incomplete investigation, potential tampering with evidence, and the possibility of the accused fleeing. They highlighted that investigations were still ongoing regarding furniture worth ₹15,14,000, cash amounting to ₹8,000, and gold ornaments weighing 13.5 tolas found at Mr. Nimbalkar’s residence. The prosecution also argued that the interrogation of other potential suspects was pending.

Special Judge S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar, after hearing both sides and perusing the case records, noted the prima facie complicity of Mr. Nimbalkar based on the prosecution’s facts. However, the court also observed that the co-accused, Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri, who allegedly accepted the bribe for Mr. Nimbalkar, had already been granted bail by the same court on February 1, 2022. The defense argued for parity based on this.

The court then considered whether the continued physical custody of Mr. Nimbalkar was necessary for the pending investigation. It noted that the ACB had already been granted sufficient opportunity for his custodial interrogation between February 6 and February 9, 2022. His voice sample had been taken, panchanamas drawn, and the bribe money, along with the seized items from his residence, had been collected. Therefore, the court found that further physical custody for the ongoing investigation was not warranted.

Addressing the prosecution’s apprehension about potential tampering of evidence, the court pointed out the absence of any previous criminal record or discreditable criminal antecedents mentioned in the Investigating Officer’s statement. The court also considered that Mr. Nimbalkar, being a suspended police officer (reportedly suspended while hospitalized for Covid-19), would have limited opportunity to influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation, especially within the jurisdiction of Dongri Police Station. His residence is in Kalyan-West, Thane.

Considering the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” and the specific facts of the case, including the role attributed to Mr. Nimbalkar and his lack of criminal history, the court concluded that he was entitled to bail with certain conditions. The court found no exceptional circumstances presented by the prosecution to reject his bail plea.

The final order issued by Special Judge S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar granted bail to Mr. Sanjeev Honaji Nimbalkar under the following conditions:

1. He shall be released on executing a Personal Bond (PB) and a Surety Bond (SB) of ₹25,000 (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only), with one or more sureties of the like amount.
2. He shall furnish his mobile/landline number, the mobile/landline numbers of his two close relatives/friends and his family members residing preferably in Mumbai or Thane, along with their residential proofs to the concerned police station and shall not change his contact details until the conclusion of the trial.
3. He shall produce proof of his identity and residence in Mumbai at the time of executing the bail bond.
4. He shall not contact the informant and prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. He shall not enter the local jurisdiction of Dongri and Pydhonie Police Stations until the completion of the investigation, except for the mandatory attendance.
5. He shall co-operate with the police during the investigation and attend the concerned police station every Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon until the filing of the charge-sheet.
6. He shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
7. He shall not commit any offence while on bail.
8. His advocate was directed to inform him of these conditions for compliance.
9. Any breach of these conditions would be viewed seriously and could lead to the cancellation of his bail.

The ACB Bail Application No. 76/2022 was accordingly disposed of. This order highlights the court’s consideration of parity with the co-accused, the stage of the investigation, and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the imperative to ensure a fair and unhindered investigation.