Mumbai, April 23, 2025 (Reported on October 25, 2018) – A Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Greater Bombay granted conditional bail to Sanjeevan Govind Yadav, a clerk working in the F/South Ward of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), who was arrested in a bribery case. The case (Crime No. 35/2018) was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The order was pronounced on October 25, 2018, by the Honorable Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda (Court Room No. 54) after hearing arguments from the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) representing the State and the advocate for the accused.

The Allegations Against the BMC Clerk:

According to the prosecution, the informant, Bhupesh Pednekar, who runs a garment business, was booked by a BMC officer on August 4, 2018, for operating without the necessary trade license. On October 15, 2018, the applicant, Sanjeevan Govind Yadav, allegedly served a notice issued by the BMC, requiring Mr. Pednekar to appear in Shindewadi Court, Dadar, Mumbai, on October 20, 2018.

The prosecution further alleged that on October 17, 2018, Yadav discussed the matter with Mr. Pednekar and demanded ₹15,000 as penalty and an additional ₹2,000 as a bribe to facilitate the disposal of the case. Furthermore, he allegedly demanded another ₹5,000 as a bribe to remove the names of the workers from the case, bringing the total alleged bribe demand to ₹7,000.

Following a complaint lodged by Mr. Pednekar on October 19, 2018, the ACB initiated verification. During this process, the applicant, after negotiations with the informant, reportedly reduced his demand to ₹6,000. The ACB subsequently laid a trap and caught Sanjeevan Govind Yadav red-handed while allegedly accepting the reduced bribe of ₹6,000 along with the penalty of ₹15,000. Consequently, he was arrested on the same day and has been in judicial custody, leading to his bail application.

Arguments for and Against Bail:

Mr. Arun Das, the learned advocate for the applicant, argued that the trap proceedings were complete, the alleged bribe amount had been recovered, and his client had already been remanded to judicial custody. He contended that further custodial detention was unnecessary and assured the court that the applicant was willing to abide by any conditions imposed.

The prosecution, represented by learned APP Mr. S.E. Soshthe, opposed the bail application. The investigating officer cited concerns that the applicant, being a public servant, could use his influence to hinder the collection of evidence and pressurize witnesses if released on bail. The prosecution argued that the offense was serious and that there was a possibility of the applicant tampering with evidence and influencing prosecution witnesses.

Court’s Reasoning for Conditional Bail:

Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda acknowledged the prima facie evidence indicating the applicant’s involvement in an offense punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While recognizing the seriousness of demanding or accepting bribes, even though not punishable with death or life imprisonment, the court highlighted the vulnerability of informants and prosecution witnesses to the influence of accused public servants upon their release on bail.

The court noted that the investigation was still incomplete, and statements from some witnesses were yet to be recorded. To ensure that the informant and other prosecution witnesses were not influenced by the applicant, the court deemed it necessary to impose a condition of depositing cash surety, liable for forfeiture in case of any breach of the bail conditions.

The court also observed that while the trap proceedings and recovery of the bribe amount were complete, further investigation was still pending. Therefore, the court decided to direct the applicant to attend the ACB office twice a week for a period of six weeks. Finding no other reasonable grounds to oppose the bail, the court was inclined to grant conditional bail.

The Final Order:

The Special Judge passed the following order:

(1) The Bail application is allowed.

(2) The applicant, Sanjeevan Govind Yadav, shall be released on the following terms and conditions:

(i) The applicant shall execute a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of ₹50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties or provide a cash surety of ₹25,000/-.

(ii) The applicant shall not repeat such an offense and shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to the informant or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the police officer or to the Court. He shall deposit an additional cash surety of ₹25,000/-, which shall be liable to be forfeited in the event of a breach of this condition, in addition to other liabilities, including the cancellation of bail.

(iii) The applicant shall attend the ACB office between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. every Wednesday and Friday for a period of six weeks from the date of his release.

(iv) The Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as and when required.

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

The bail application was disposed of accordingly. The order was dictated on October 25, 2018, transcribed on October 26, 2018, signed on the same day, and uploaded online at 5:35 p.m.

This order granting conditional bail reflects the court’s consideration of both the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation and the safety of witnesses. The stringent conditions imposed, including regular attendance at the ACB office and the potential forfeiture of a significant cash surety, aim to ensure the applicant’s cooperation and prevent any attempts to obstruct justice.