Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 13, 2022 – A Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Greater Bombay, has granted bail to Rajendra Sahadeo Naik, a public servant working as a Project Officer in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). Naik was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in connection with C.R. No. 23/2022, for offenses under Sections 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act) and 12 (abetment of offences¹ defined in section 7 or section 11) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Special Judge S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar passed the order on April 12, 2022, allowing Naik’s bail application (No. 238 of 2022).

Prosecution’s Case: Demand and Acceptance of Bribe for Official Favor

The prosecution’s case alleges that the informant’s wife had filed an application with the BMC project officer’s office, which was dismissed on appeal. Subsequently, the informant filed an application dated January 6, 2022, with the BMC’s East division in Andheri. Naik, the accused No. 1 in the case, allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹3,00,000 from the informant to change the appeal order and regularize the entry of the informant’s shop in the BMC records.

The informant lodged a complaint with the ACB regarding this demand on February 18, 2022. A verification process conducted on February 21, 2022, allegedly confirmed Naik’s demand for the bribe. On April 4, 2022, a trap was laid. During the trap, accused No. 2 allegedly accepted ₹3,00,000 as instructed by Naik, leading to their arrest. A personal search of Naik allegedly yielded ₹80,000, and an additional ₹3,00,000 was found in Naik’s office. Consequently, an FIR was filed against both accused for the aforementioned offenses.

Applicant’s Grounds for Bail: False Implication, Completed Interrogation, and Clean Record

Mr. Abhijit Mantri, the learned advocate for Naik, argued that his client had been falsely implicated in the case and that further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. He emphasized that Naik had an unblemished service record and that all necessary panchanamas (record of evidence) had been completed. Naik, a permanent resident of Thane, expressed his readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Prosecution’s Objections: Primary Stage of Investigation and Potential for Obstruction

Mr. Pankaj Chavan, the learned A.P.P. for the State/ACB, opposed the bail application, asserting that the investigation was in its primary stage. The prosecution raised concerns that if released on bail, Naik could destroy evidence, pressurize witnesses, and evade future proceedings. They also argued that Naik had not provided a satisfactory explanation regarding the recovered amounts.

Court’s Reasoning: Sufficient Custodial Interrogation and No Criminal Antecedents

Special Judge Naik-Nimbalkar, after hearing both sides and perusing the case record, acknowledged the prima facie complicity of Naik in the alleged offense based on the prosecution’s facts, noting that Naik was allegedly caught red-handed while the bribe was accepted and the amounts were recovered.

However, the court then focused on the necessity of further physical custody for investigation. It noted that the ACB had already been granted sufficient opportunity for custodial interrogation of Naik from April 5, 2022, to April 8, 2022. The court also pointed out that Naik’s voice sample had been taken, and the panchanamas had been drawn. Based on the Investigating Officer’s statement, the court found no compelling circumstances indicating that further investigation required Naik’s physical custody.

Addressing the prosecution’s apprehension regarding potential tampering of evidence, the court observed that there was nothing in the Investigating Officer’s statement to suggest that Naik had any prior criminal record or discreditable criminal antecedents. Furthermore, Naik was a resident of Thane. The court concluded that imposing certain terms and conditions on Naik’s release could adequately address the prosecution’s concerns.

Conclusion: Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions

The court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Considering the facts of the case, Naik’s role in the pending investigation, and the absence of any criminal antecedents, the court found him entitled to bail subject to specific terms and conditions. The court stated that no exceptional circumstances had been presented by the prosecution to warrant the rejection of Naik’s bail plea.

Bail Conditions Imposed

The court ordered the release of Rajendra Sahadeo Naik on a personal bond and surety bond of ₹25,000 each, with the following conditions:

1. Naik shall furnish his mobile/landline number, the mobile/landline numbers of two close relatives/friends and family members residing preferably in Mumbai, along with their residential proofs, to the concerned police station and shall not change his contact details until the conclusion of the trial.
2. Naik shall produce proof of his identity and residence at the time of executing the bail bond.
3. Naik shall not contact the informant and prosecution witnesses in any manner and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
4. Naik shall cooperate with the police during the investigation and shall attend the concerned police station every Thursday and Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon until the filing of the charge sheet.
5. Naik shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
6. Naik shall not commit any offense while on bail.
7. Provisional cash bail of ₹25,000 was accepted for a period of four weeks, within which the surety was to be complied with.
8. Naik’s advocate was directed to inform him of these conditions for compliance.
9. Any breach or default of these conditions would be viewed seriously and could lead to the cancellation of his bail.

The ACB Bail Application No. 238 of 2022 was accordingly disposed of. This order emphasizes the court’s consideration of the stage of the investigation, the accused’s background, and the imposition of stringent conditions to balance the accused’s right to liberty with the need for a fair and unobstructed investigation and trial.