Mumbai, Thane [April 16, 2018] – The Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay has granted bail to Nagendra Prasad Yadav, a Senior Examiner at the Trade Mark Registry, Trade Mark Division, Intellectual Property Bhavan, Antop Hill, Mumbai. Yadav was arrested by the CBI/ACB, Mumbai, in connection with an FIR (RC BA1/2018/A/0008) related to allegations of demanding a bribe of ₹5,000. The order, dated March 6, 2018, was pronounced by His Honour Judge Shri S.R. Tamboli (Court Room No. 47) in Bail Application No. 144 of 2018, filed in relation to Remand Application No. 223 of 2018.

Advocate Mr. A.Z. Mookhtiar, representing Yadav, argued that his client was falsely implicated by the complainant. He emphasized that further custody would amount to pre-trial punishment and that Yadav had strong community ties in Mumbai, where he and his family resided. Counsel assured the court that Yadav would be available for trial, would not tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses, and that the investigation concerning his client was largely complete. He highlighted that no significant role was attributed to Yadav beyond the allegations, that he had no criminal history, and was willing to cooperate with the investigation. Mr. Mookhtiar also drew the court’s attention to Yadav’s responsibilities towards his wife and two young children (aged 3 years and 2 months) and his aged parents, arguing that the lengthy trial process warranted his release on bail.

SPP Mr. J.K. Sharma, representing the CBI, EOW, countered that the case was registered on February 22, 2018, based on a complaint from Mr. Om Prakash Shrivastav of M/s. Anovaa Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Yadav, in his capacity as Senior Examiner, allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹5,000 for accepting the brand name “ALLONOVA.” The complaint was verified through a trap on February 22, 2018, where Yadav reiterated his demand. Consequently, a case was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Yadav was arrested on February 23, 2018. The prosecution argued that the serious nature of the offense warranted the rejection of Yadav’s bail application, fearing he might threaten the complainant and tamper with evidence if released.

Mr. Mookhtiar, in support of the bail plea, relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Bhagirath Sinh S/o. Mahipat Singh Judeja v/s. State of Gujarat and Dattaram Singh V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., emphasizing that bail discretion should be exercised judiciously, humanely, and compassionately, and that an accused should not be punished by detention before trial.

Judge Tamboli noted the prosecution’s primary concerns regarding the seriousness of the case and potential evidence tampering. However, the court pointed out that the amount involved in the offense was a relatively small sum of ₹5,000. Furthermore, the panchanama (record of the raid) was complete, and the search of Yadav’s premises had been conducted, with no allegations of disproportionate assets involved.

The court also observed that the case did not involve numerous complex documents and that the complainant himself was a key witness. The court reasoned that if Yadav attempted to influence the complainant, the prosecution could seek cancellation of his bail.

Acknowledging Yadav’s status as a public servant with deep roots in society and the lack of any indication of him absconding, along with the likelihood of a lengthy trial and the fact that the offense carried a maximum punishment of seven years, the court found substance in the arguments presented by Yadav’s counsel. Considering all these factors, the court deemed it proper to allow the bail application.

In the final order, the court directed:

1. Application is allowed.
2. Accused be released on PR of ₹1,00,000 and in the same amount of surety.
3. Accused to provide detailed proof of residence supported by documentary evidence.
4. Accused not to leave the country without prior permission of the court.
5. Accused to deposit his passport, if any, in the office of CBI.
6. Accused to attend the office of CBI every Saturday in the fortnight between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. until the filing of the chargesheet.
7. Accused not to tamper with prosecution’s witnesses or any documents connected with the offense.

The order, dictated and transcribed on March 6, 2018, and signed on March 7, 2018, highlights the court’s consideration of the relatively small amount of the alleged bribe, the completion of the initial investigation stages, the accused’s social standing, and the potential for a protracted trial as key reasons for granting bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure his availability and prevent any interference with the legal process.