Mumbai, July 30, 2021 – Gajanan Sharad Joshi, a 59-year-old Station Director with Central Railway, has been granted bail by the Special Judge, CBI, at Greater Bombay. Joshi was arrested and in judicial custody since July 24, 2021, for offenses under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, following a trap laid by the CBI.
Special Judge V.C. Barde allowed Bail Application No. 648 of 2021, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case Background
The CBI’s Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), Mumbai, registered an FIR on July 23, 2021, based on a complaint from a contractor operating ‘Pay and Use Toilets’ for Indian Railways. The complainant alleged that Gajanan Sharad Joshi (Accused No. 1) demanded ₹25,000 to ensure the smooth continuation of his contract and a monthly payment of ₹5,000. Accused No. 2, Joshi’s attendant, was also implicated.
The CBI verified the complaint with independent witnesses and recorded conversations between the complainant and Joshi, confirming a bribe demand of ₹10,000. A trap was successfully laid on July 24, 2021, and both accused were caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. They were arrested and produced before the Special Court on July 25, 2021, and have been in judicial custody since.
Arguments for Bail
Ld. Advocate Mr. V.N. Shingnapurkar (also appearing as Mr. Amit A. Kadam) for Gajanan Sharad Joshi, argued that his client had an unblemished service record of 41 years in the Railways with no prior allegations. He highlighted that Joshi had cooperated with the CBI after his arrest and was ready to continue assisting with the investigation. The defence emphasized that the CBI had already searched his office and residential premises and seized relevant documents, suggesting that further custody was unnecessary. It was also stated that Joshi’s family was dependent on him, and he would abide by all court conditions, with no likelihood of tampering with evidence or fleeing justice.
The advocate specifically pointed out that Joshi’s custody for over 48 hours would lead to his automatic suspension from Central Railway services, thus eliminating any possibility of him influencing railway officials. He also confirmed Joshi’s willingness to provide his voice sample to the CBI.
Prosecution’s Opposition
Ld. P.P. Mr. P.K.B. Gaikwad for the CBI opposed the bail application, arguing that releasing Joshi would hinder the ongoing investigation. The CBI contended that due to Joshi’s long service, he might threaten the complainant and influence railway officials or private individuals to prevent them from identifying his voice in recorded conversations. The prosecution also claimed that “lot of information can surface revealing involvement of other officers/officials in regular collection of bribe amount,” and that scrutiny of seized documents was ongoing.
A key concern raised was the inability to obtain Joshi’s voice sample during his one-day custody (as Accused No. 2 tested Covid-19 positive, precluding interrogation of both). The CBI feared Joshi might avoid giving his voice sample or joining the investigation if released. They presented written arguments emphasizing the serious nature of corruption offenses, the prima facie evidence of bribe demand and acceptance, and the need for thorough investigation to “unearth the modus operandi” of collecting bribes from various individuals operating within Central Railway premises.
The CBI cited several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including:
- Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI: Economic offenses are a class apart and need a different approach to bail, as they affect the economy of the country.
- P. Chidambaram v. CBI: Reaffirmed principles for bail, stating that each case must be decided on its merits, and general apprehension of “flight risk” or “tampering” without material basis is not sufficient to deny bail, especially if the accused has cooperated and a chargesheet is filed.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
Special Judge V.C. Barde carefully considered the arguments and reviewed the case records. The court acknowledged the CBI’s contention regarding the gravity of economic offenses, citing the various judgments presented.
However, the judge specifically referenced the Supreme Court’s observations in P. Chidambaram v. CBI, which cautioned against denying bail based on generalized apprehension of flight risk or tampering without concrete material. The court noted that the CBI’s concerns about Joshi influencing witnesses or avoiding voice samples were largely speculative at this stage, especially since he would be suspended from his job.
The court recognized that the present case was a successful trap operation where the bribe amount was recovered, and necessary panchanamas were already drawn. While acknowledging the CBI’s need for a voice sample, the court stated that this could be addressed by issuing appropriate directions to the accused to cooperate. Concerns about “other offenses which may surface” were deemed matters for the prosecution to pursue separately according to law.
The court concluded that, given the circumstances—a successful trap case where the bribe amount was recovered, the accused’s current judicial custody, and the applicability of well-settled legal principles—there was no sufficient ground to refuse bail.
Bail Conditions
Accordingly, Gajanan Sharad Joshi was granted bail subject to the following conditions:
- He must furnish a Personal Release (P.R.) bond of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with surety/sureties of the like amount.
- He shall attend the office of CBI between 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM from August 2, 2021, to August 4, 2021.
- He shall remain present for giving voice samples and/or (the order text ends here, but typically includes clauses not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses).