Order
.. 1 ..

ACB Bail Application No. 57/2022
CNR No. MHCC02-001244-2022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
ACB BAIL APPLICATION NO. 57 OF 2022
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO. 87 OF 2022
Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri
)
Applicant/Orig. Accd.
No. 1
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B., Mumbai
vide C. R. No. 3/2022).

)
)
)
Respdt./Complainant
Appearances :
Mr. Sameer D. Pradhan, Ld. Adv. for the applicant/orig. accused no. 1.
Mr. S. E. Soshte, Ld. A.P.P. for the State/Respondent/ACB.
CORAM:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT, 1988
S. P. NAIK-NIMBALKAR,
(C.R. No. 46).

DATED:
1st February, 2022.

:ORAL ORDER:
The application is filed by the applicant/original accused
no. 1 Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C.” for short) for releasing him on
bail. He is in Judicial Custody since 31/01/2022. The offence under
..2..
Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act”
for short) is filed vide C.R. No. 3/2022 by the ACB.
2.

The gist of prosecution case is that the informant Abdul
Rafiq Qadar Shaikh is a resident of Girgaon, Mumbai.

His cousin
brother Sajid Shaikh was caught with a chit of ‘matka’ in his pocket by
accused no. 1 Public Servant Sanjiv Nimbalkar. He was taken to Dongri
Police Station. Demand of bribe of Rs. 50,000/- was made from him by
both accused persons. The informant approached ACB. After doing
requisite formalities, on 27/01/2022 the complaint was taken. Demand
was verified. It was told to the informant to give the amount of Rs.
20,000/- to the applicant/accused.

After completion of necessary
formalities of pre-trap panchanama, trap was laid. It was successful.
The applicant/accused was caught red-handed while accepting demand
of bribe Rs. 18,000/-.
20,500/-,
was
Alongwith the belongings an amount of Rs.

seized
from
the
applicant/accused.

The
applicant/accused was arrested and booked in the crime.

He was
remanded to the P.C.R. from 28/01/2022 to 31/01/2022.

On
31/01/2022, he was taken into Judiciary Custody till 14/02/2022.
3.

The grounds on which bail is sought are that, the applicant/
accused is innocent and is falsely implicated. He was known to the
informant and the co-accused and in goodfaith, he accepted the money
without having any knowledge that the money is a bribe amount.
Investigation is completed. Interrogation is done. He has co-operated
with the police. He has roots in the society. He would not flee. He is
ready to abide with any conditions, if imposed by this Court. Hence,
bail may be granted.
4.

Notice was issued to the State/ACB. The prosecution has
opposed the bail application on the grounds that the accused Public
..3..
Servant Sanjiv Nimbalkar is tested Covid positive and is quarantined.
Hence, investigation is to be done with him. If the applicant/accused is
released on bail, he would pressurize the informant and witnesses. He
would destroy the evidence. Investigation is incomplete. Investigation
would be hampered, if the applicant/accused is released on bail. Hence,
on this grounds, it is submitted to reject his bail application.
5.

In view of the above rival facts, the following points arise
for my consideration and I have given my findings against each of them
for the reasons recorded below :-
Points
Findings
(1)
Whether the applicant/accused is entitled
to be released on bail under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?.. In the affirmative
(2)
What order ?

.. As per final order
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 :6.

Heard both the sides and perused the case record.

7.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Sameer Pradhan for the applicant/accused
and Ld. A.P.P. Mr. S. E. Soshte for the State/ACB have submitted as per
their respective contentions.
8.

As per the facts of prosecution case, prima-facie, complicity
of applicant/accused with the offence is seen through the case record.
The applicant/accused was caught red-handed while accepting bribe of
Rs. 18,000/-. The amount is recovered from him.
9.

It is to be decided as to whether the physical custody of the
..4..
applicant/accused
is
necessary
during
the
course
of
pending
investigation. It is seen from the record that sufficient opportunity for
custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is already granted to
the ACB.

The applicant/accused was in P.C.R. since 28/01/2022 to
31/01/2022.

The voice sample of applicant/accused is taken.

Panchanamas are drawn. Therefore, there are no circumstances in the
Say of Investigating Officer to infer that the investigation is to be done
with the aid of applicant/accused, hereinafter. It is the contention of
prosecution that the investigation is pending with accused no. 2.
However, as submitted, he is tested Covid positive and he is quarantined
in the hospital. Therefore, the need and necessity of physical custody of
the applicant/accused qua-pending investigation, are not warranted.
10.

The apprehension of prosecution is pertaining to alleged
tampering of evidence at the hands of applicant/accused.

In that
regard, there is nothing in the Say of Investigating Officer that the
applicant/accused has any previous criminal record or is having criminal
antecedents to his discredit.

He is residing on the given address at
Mumbai. Therefore, by imposing certain terms and conditions on the
applicant/accused, the objection of the prosecution can be taken care of.
11.

As bail is the rule and jail is an exception, considering the
facts of case and the role of applicant/accused in pending investigation
with regard to his criminal antecedents, he is entitled to be released on
bail on certain terms and conditions. No purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars.

There are no exceptional circumstances
pointed out by the prosecution to reject the bail plea of the
applicant/accused. Resultantly, I answer Point No. 1 in the affirmative
and with regard to Point No. 2, I proceed to pass the following order :-
..5..

ORDER
1.
ACB Bail Application No. 57/2022 filed by
applicant/original accused no. 1 Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri in
ACB Remand Application No. 87/2022 (C.R. No. 3/2022) is hereby
allowed.

2.
The applicant/accused shall be released on his executing
PB and SB of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only), with
one or more sureties in the like amount.
3.
The applicant/accused shall furnish his mobile/landline
number, the mobile/landline numbers of his two close
relatives/friends and his family members, who are residing preferably
in Mumbai, along with their residential proofs to the concerned police
station and shall not change his contact details till conclusion of trial.
4.
The applicant/accused shall also produce the proof of his
identity and proof of residence in Mumbai, at the time of executing
bail bond.
5.
The applicant/accused shall not contact the informant
and prosecution witnesses in any manner and will not tamper with
the prosecution evidence. He shall not enter the local jurisdiction of
Dongri and Pydhonie Police Stations till the completion of
investigation.
6.
The applicant/accused shall co-operate with the police
during investigation. He shall attend the concerned police station
every Thursday in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, till filing of the
charge-sheet.
7.
The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
8.
The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence
while on bail.
9.
Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused is directed to
inform the above conditions to the applicant/accused for compliance.
10.
In case of breach/default of any of the above condition by
the applicant/accused, it would be viewed seriously and it would
entail cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.

..6..
11.
ACB Bail Application No. 57/2022 filed by
applicant/original accused no. 1 Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri in
ACB Remand Application No. 87/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.

(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.)
NAIKNIMBALKAR
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
Date:-01/02/2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Sent to Dept. on
:
:
:
:
Digitally signed by
NAIKNIMBALKAR
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
Date: 2022.02.01
16:41:05 +0530
(S. P. NAIK-NIMBALKAR)
Special Judge under P.C. Act,
City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay
at Mumbai.

01/02/2022
01/02/2022
01/02/2022
..7..

CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
01/02/2022 at 4:40 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Gitalaxmi R. Mohite
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.

H.H.J. Shri. S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar
(Court Room No. 46)
)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 01/02/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
01/02/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
01/02/2022