Mumbai, Maharashtra [India] – [August 28, 2019]: A Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act for Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Dhondiram Shankarrao Bandgar, a corporation employee arrested in connection with a bribery case. The order, passed by Special Judge Ashutosh N. Karmarkar (Court Room No. 54), was issued on August 6, 2019.
Bandgar was arrested on August 2, 2019, in connection with C.R. No. 25 of 2019 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai. He was booked under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which pertains to public servants taking illegal gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. After being in police custody until August 5, 2019, he was remanded to judicial custody. He subsequently filed a bail application (BA No. 691 of 2019) claiming innocence and false implication.
According to Bandgar’s plea, the original complainant was allegedly not resuming his duty on time, and the applicant had decided to take action against him. He argued that this led to his false implication in the bribery case. The applicant further stated that the statements of witnesses had been recorded, his house had been searched, and the investigation was practically complete, negating the need for his further detention. He also cited his responsibility as the sole earning member of his family.
The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Mr. Siroya, vehemently opposed the bail application, as outlined in their reply (Exh. 2). They alleged that Bandgar had demanded a bribe of ₹10,000 from the complainant to facilitate the payment of his salary, which was later settled at ₹5,000. The prosecution argued that further investigation was required, including the recording of more witness statements and the recovery of CCTV footage from the applicant’s office. They also raised concerns that Bandgar might pressurize the witnesses if released on bail.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Special Judge Ashutosh N. Karmarkar considered the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the applicant was a corporation employee residing in the adjoining Thane district, suggesting a low risk of absconding. The tainted bribe amount had already been recovered from Bandgar, and his voice sample had been taken. Furthermore, his house had been searched, indicating that a significant portion of the investigation was complete. The court opined that further detention appeared unwarranted at this stage.
The court also took into account the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which extends up to seven years of imprisonment. While acknowledging the prosecution’s concerns, the court believed that these could be addressed by imposing specific conditions on the bail.
Based on these considerations, the Special Judge decided to grant the bail application, leading to the following order:
Order:
- Bail Application No. 691 of 2019 in ACB Remand Application No. 861 of 2019 is allowed and disposed of.
- Applicant/Accused Dhondiram Shankarrao Bandgar shall be released on bail upon executing a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of ₹15,000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) and a surety bond of a like amount with one or more sureties.
- He shall not tamper with the evidence or the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- He shall attend the office of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) on alternate Sundays, starting from August 18, 2019, between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m., for a period of two months or until the filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier.
- Bail Application No. 691 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly.
The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on August 6, 2019, and the certified copy was made available on August 7, 2019.
This case highlights the judiciary’s approach in balancing the need for investigation in corruption cases with the individual’s right to liberty. The court’s decision to grant bail, while imposing conditions like regular reporting to the Investigating Officer, suggests a belief that the major part of the investigation is concluded and the accused’s presence for further proceedings can be ensured without continued detention. The outcome also underscores the importance of considering the stage of investigation and the potential for witness tampering when deciding on bail applications in corruption matters.