Bail Appl. No.220/23
1 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
MHCC020041222023
CNR NO.MHCC02­004122­2023
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) FOR GREATER BOMBAY
ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION NO.220/2023
IN
RC­No.0262023A0010, CBI, ACB, Mumbai
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.268/2023
Shailendra Kumar Pal
Presently residing at
Deen Bandhu Nagar,
Barkat Ali Naka, Antop Hill,
Mumbai­400037.
AND
Annamalaisamy Arunachalam,
Presently residing at
A­203, Wadala Ganesh CHS Ltd.,
C.S. No.­2a/85 Plot No.1,
Salt Division S.M. Road,
Wadala (East), Mumbai­400037.

.. Applicant/Accused
Vs.
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
.. Prosecution.

..2..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
2 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
Appearances :
Ld. Counsel Anjali Patil for both the applicant/accused.
Ld. SPP P.K.B. Gaikwad for respondent/CBI,ACB, Mumbai.
CORAM : H.H.THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
M.R.PURWAR
DATED : 21.03.2023 (C.R.NO. 53)
ORDER
The
applicant/accused
Shailendra
Kumar
Pal
and
Annamalaisamy Arunachalam have filed present application for grant of
regular bail.
2.

In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the crime vide
RC­0262023A0010 was registered by CBI, ACB, Mumbai for commission
of offence punishable u/s. 120­B of IPC r/w. Sections 7, 9 , 10, 11 and
12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.

It is the case of the prosecution that the information from
reliable sources revealed that accused Satish Chadra Jha working as
Accounts Officer (Store Section), Office of the Principal Controller of
Defence Accounts ( Navy), Mumbai and indulge in corrupt and illegal
activities in connivance with certain private suppliers and regularly
taking bribes for favourably processing payment of the bills of those
suppliers. Accused Annamalaisamy Arunachalam is the proprietor of
M/s. Ultra Marine and accused Shailendra Kumar Pal is the employee
of M/s. Ultra Marine. It is alleged that on 28.10.2022 accused
Annamalaisamy Arunachalam contacted accused Satish Chandra Jha,
..3..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
3 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
enquired about payment status of the bills of his firm and assured
accused Satish Chandra Jha for payment of bribe to clear the bills. On
23.02.2023 accused Annamalaisamy Arunachalam again requested
accused Satish Chandra jha to pass the bill. On 06.03.2023 accused
Annamalaisamy Arunachalam directed his employee Rajan to ensure
payment of bribe to CDA officer in respect of all bills. It is also alleged
that accused Shailendra Kumar Pal called accused Satish Jha in the
afternoon on 06.03.2023 for meeting. The source information also
informed that the demanded bribe will be delivered to accused Satish
Jha during evening hours. It is also alleged that on many earlier
occasions accused Annamalaisamy Arunachalam contacted accused
Satish Jha for passing the bills of his firm and paid bribes to accused
Satish Jha. As such regular case was registered by the CBI, ACB,
Mumbai and thereafter a successful trap was made wherein accused
Satish Jha was caught after he had accepted bribe amount of Rs.
3,45,760/­ from co­accused Shailendra Kumar Pal given to him by
accused Annamalaisamy Arunachalam and said amount was recovered
from accused Sathish Jha.
4.

The applicants/accused have come with the case that they
are innocent and have not committed any offence. There are no
antecedents against them. They are permanent resident of the given
address. That applicant/accused Annamalaisamy Arunachalam is a
retired Ex­Navy employee and after retirement doing business vide his
firm M/s.Ultra Marine Services and contributing towards repair work of
ships of the navy. As such he himself alongwith his employees, in the
ordinary course of his business inquired with accused Satish Jha for
..4..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
4 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
clearance of his bills but never offered or paid bribe to him. In the
normal course of business he will have to follow up with the client for
clearance of bills. His employees had followed up with various account
officers of the store department of the office of Principal Controller of
Defence Accounts (Navy) for the payment of their due bills. Accused
Satish Jha is not the person who approves the payment and no question
of giving bribe to him. The hard disk of the computer in the office of
Chennai and Mumbai have already been seized. No preliminary inquiry
conducted by the CBI. The applicants have been arrested on suspicion.
No notice served. The entire case is based upon documentary evidence
and banking transaction and as such there is no possibility of
tampering. The investigating agency has carried out search of the
residence of the applicants/accused. The alleged amount of bribe is
already recovered and nothing is to be recovered at the instance of the
applicants/accused. The alleged chit was found by the prosecution and
it is the matter of trial. The nature of evidence is documentary. There is
no frima facie case. They are ready to abide with the terms. They will
not tamper with the evidence. They have prayed for grant of bail.
5.

The prosecution has resisted the prayer by filing reply. It is
contended that accused Satich Chandra Jha and Shailendra Kumar Pal
have been caught hold red handed and were arrested.

The bribe
amount of Rs.3,45,760/­ was recovered during successful trap. Accused
Annamalaisamy
Arunachalam was also arrested. All the legal
formalities have been followed during arrest. After police custody all the
above accused have been remanded to judicial custody. All the above
accused are involved in corrupt practices. Number of the witnesses are
..5..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
5 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
yet to be examined and documentary evidence is yet to be collected.
The accused are highly influential persons. There is sufficient evidence
against the accused persons to establish the offence committed by them.
The offence is serious in nature. Releasing accused on bail will be
having adverse impact on the society. The economic offence is more
serious. There is reasonable apprehension of tampering. In the event of
releasing accused on bail possibility of indulging in similar type of the
offence cannot be ruled out. The CBI has prayed for rejection of the
application.
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused and Ld. SPP
for CBI.
7.

It is argued by the Ld. advocate for the applicants/accused
that the accused have not committed any offence and involved in a false
case. While making arrest the legal formalities have not been complied.
The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act are
not made out. The FIR was registered on the basis of source information
and not on the basis of complaint of de­facto complainant and as such
no question of demand arises which is foremost ingredient of Section 7
of the PC Act. The mobile phones and hard disk has already been
recovered. The house search of the resident of the accused have already
been conducted. The voice sample is also collected. The specimen
handwriting of the accused is also collected. As the FIR was registered
on source information and therefore the moment the alleged trap was
laid and the alleged amount was recovered the investigation virtually
completed. The entire case is based upon the documentary evidence
..6..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
6 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
and no question of tampering arises. The accused are ready to abide
with the terms. He prayed for grant of bail.

8.

The Ld. Advocate for the accused has relied upon following
case laws.
a.

Arnesh Kumar V/s. State of Bihar, (2014)8 SCC 273
b.

Satender Kumar Antil V/s. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51.

c.

Chanda Deepak Kochher V/s. Central Bureau of
Investigation, Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp)
No.22494/2022 with interim application (Stamp)No.54
of 2023 decided on 09.01.2023 (Bombay High Court).

9.

Per Contra, it is argued by the Ld. SPP that the offence is
serious is nature. The applicant alongwith other accused persons
hatched the conspiracy and committed serious offence. There is prima
facie case against the applicants/accused. The accused Satish Jha was
caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount from accused
Shailendra Pal on behalf of accused Annamalaisamy Arunachalam. All
legal formalities have been followed while making arrest. The
investigation is at crucial stage and possibility of tampering cannot be
ruled out. He prayed for rejection of application.

10.

The Ld. SPP has relied upon following case Laws.

a.

The State V/s. Jagjit Singh, MANU/SU/0139/1961­AIR 1
962 SC 253.
..7..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
b.

7 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
Ram Govind Upadhayay V/s. Sudarshan Singh, AIR
2002 Supreme Court 1475.

c.

Nimmagadda Prasad V/s. Central Bureau of
Investigation, AIR 2013 SC 2821.

11.

I have given mindful consideration to the submission and
perused the record. I have also gone through with the observations of
the case laws cited supra and very much guided.

12.

It is the matter of record that the FIR was registered on the
basis of source information and not on the basis of complaint of the de­
facto complaint. It is the case of the prosecution that the reliable
sources revealed that accused Satish Jha working as accounts officer
indulgent in corrupt activities with certain private suppliers and taking
bribe for processing payment of the bills. Accused Annamalaisamy
Arunachalam is the proprietor of M/s. Ultra Marine and accused
Shailendra Pal is its employee. It is alleged by the prosecution that
accused Shailendra Pall called accused Satish Jha in the afternoon on
06.03.2023 for meeting on the directions of accused Annamalaisamy
Arunachalam and the source information informed that the demanded
bribe will be delivered to accused Satish Jha during evening hours.

13.

It is further case of the prosecution that a successful trap
was laid wherein accused Satish Jha was caught after he had accepted
the bribe amount of Rs.3,45,760/­ from co­accused Shailendra Pal given
by another co­accused Annamalaisamy Arunachalam and said amount
was recovered in presence of witnesses. Thus, basically the case in hand
..8..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
8 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
is in respect of demand and acceptance of bribe amount of
Rs.3,45,760/­ for the purposes of clearance of the bills. During the
course of investigation the search of the residence of all accused persons
came to be conducted. One chit, mobile phones and hard disk came to
be recovered. Certain documents have also been seized. The voice
sample of the accused is also stated to be collected. The specimen
handwriting of the accused is also stated to be collected. Thus, it
appears that the material investigation is completed.

14.

After sufficient period of police custody, the investigating
officer has himself claimed judicial custody of accused. The copy of
Adhar Card of accused show the address of residence as Mumbai. The
Ld. SPP has expressed apprehension about tampering and hampering.
However, nothing brought on record to substantiate the same. There is
nothing on record to show criminal antecedent against accused. In the
case of Jagjit Singh cited supra the accused alongwith two others was
prosecuted for conspiracy and also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Indian
Official Secrets Act on the allegations that in conspiracy they had passed
on official secrets to foreign agency. In the case of Ram Govinda
Upadhaya cited supra the allegations of booth capturing as also that of
a refusal to permit the voters to vote are there and the FIR under
Section 302 of IPC alongwith other charges was registered. In the case
of Nimmagadda Prasad cited supra it is alleged that the Government of
Andhra Pradesh, led by then Chief Minister extended many undue
favours to the appellant by abusing his official position and thereby, an
extent of 18878 Acers was alloted in his favour, in return, A3 paid
illegal gratification amounting to Rs.854.50 crores to accused No.1.

..9..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
9 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
Thus it is seen that the facts of the case of Jagjit Singh, Ram Govind
Upadhaya and Nimmagadda Prasad, cited supra and of the case in hand
are quite different. Moreover the anxiety of Ld. SPP can be taken care of
by imposing certain conditions. In the given facts and circumstances of
the case, taking into consideration the nature of the accusations, the
severity of the punishment, the nature of the evidence and for the
reason referred above as well as the very fact of the trap, the discretion
can be exercised on certain stringent conditions. Thus, I pass the
following order:­
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.220/2023 is hereby allowed.

2.

Applicants/accused Shailedra Kumar Pal and Annamalaisamy
Arunachalam be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of
Rs.30,000/­ each (Rs. Thirty thousand only) with one or more
sureties in the like amount each in FIR RC No.0262023A0010
(Remand Application No.268/2023) at the instance of CBI, ACB,
Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 120B of Indian
Penal Code r/w. Sections 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018).

3.

The
applicants/accused
shall
furnish
correct
detail
permanent/temporary residential address, office address ( if any)
with landline, mobile phone numbers, E­mail ID’s and name of
two persons with all particulars who should be contacted in
future when accused remains absent.
4.

The applicants/accused shall submit undertaking to submit
change in address, in future, if any.

..10..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
5.

10 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
The applicants/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.

6.

The applicants/accused shall not tamper the evidence in the case
or influence any witness in the case.

7.

The applicants/accused shall not commit any offence during the
period they are released on bail.

8.

Breach of any of the conditions will be a ground to cancel the
bail.

9.

Bail Application No.220/2023 is hereby disposed off accordingly.

Digitally signed by
MANOJKUMAR
RAMESHCHANDRA
PURWAR
Date: 2023.03.21
17:18:16 +0530
Mumbai:
Date: 21.03.2023
Typed on
Signed on
:
:
(M.R.PURWAR)
Special Judge (CBI)
Court Room No.53,
Gr. Bombay.
21.03.2023
21.03.2023
..11..

Bail Appl. No.220/23
11 of 10
In Remand Appl.No.268/23
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order”.
21.03.2023
at about 5.15 P.M.

(Pushpa Rajan Vengurlekar)
Stenographer (H.G.)
Court Room No.53
Name of the Hon’ble Judge
: Shri. M.R.Purwar
(Court Room No.53)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
: 21.03.2023.

Judgment/Order signed by Hon’ble Judge on : 21.03.2023.
Judgment/Order uploaded on
: 21.03.2023.

….