Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act has denied bail for the second time to Mangesh Namdev Rakshe, a 42-year-old police constable, who is accused of demanding and attempting to accept a bribe of ₹7,000. The order, issued on September 30, 2024, by Special Judge S.B. Joshi (C.R. No. 46), reiterated concerns about the ongoing investigation and the potential for the accused to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses.
Rakshe, currently lodged at Mumbai Central Prison, had filed a successive bail application (Bail Application No. 759 of 2024) under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He faces charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with C.R. No. 28 of 2024, registered with the ACB, Worli Unit, Mumbai.
Allegations and Defense’s Claims
According to the prosecution, Rakshe demanded a bribe of ₹7,000 to release a vehicle license and avoid initiating criminal action following an accident involving the complainant’s vehicle. The ACB alleges that Rakshe attempted to receive this bribe amount.
Advocate Mr. Taraq Sayyad, representing Rakshe, vehemently denied the accusations, claiming his client was falsely implicated. He asserted that the incident was merely a road accident where Rakshe’s bike collided with the complainant’s car, which was allegedly parked without proper lighting. The complainant, according to the defense, had agreed to compensate Rakshe for damages to his bike, and the bribery allegation was a fabricated attempt to misuse the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The defense argued that no bribe amount was recovered from Rakshe, and there was no evidence of demand or acceptance.
Furthermore, Mr. Sayyad highlighted that Rakshe is suffering from a head injury sustained in the accident, requiring an urgent CT scan of the brain due to potential serious conditions like subdural/epidural hematoma, which could lead to “lucid intervals” followed by deterioration. He stressed that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” and that nothing remained to be investigated, urging the court to grant bail and allow for cash surety.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Reasoning
Learned APP Mr. Lade, representing the State, along with the Investigating Officer, strongly opposed the bail, submitting a joint statement. They contended that the investigation is still active, noting that the complainant had made a Google Pay payment of ₹3,000 to a third person named Sarfarj Khan, as instructed by Rakshe. The bank accounts of this private person are yet to be investigated, and technical investigations involving mobile phone data and location are still pending. The prosecution expressed a strong apprehension that Rakshe, if released, would tamper with material documents, documentary evidence, and the ongoing investigation.
Special Judge Joshi meticulously reviewed the arguments and the record, including the previous bail order. The court noted that Rakshe’s earlier bail application, filed on September 18, 2024, was rejected just 12 days prior to the current application. The previous rejection was based on observations that Rakshe had demanded ₹10,000 for a settlement, confiscated the complainant’s license, threatened him by asserting his police constable status, and directed the complainant to pay ₹3,000 via Google Pay to a tea stall owner from whom he collected the money. The earlier court had found Rakshe to have played an “active role” and misused his post, concluding that he would likely tamper with witnesses and the investigation.
Judge Joshi found “nothing to see any change in circumstance” since the previous rejection. The court stated that the medical ground, while serious, “cannot be said as a change in circumstance to consider this successive application.”
The order asserted, “If the application came to be allowed then definitely investigation which is in progress will tamper and possibility of putting pressure on the witnesses cannot be ruled out at the hands of applicant.” The court concluded that since the investigation is not complete, and no new, justifiable grounds or change in circumstances have arisen, Rakshe is not entitled to bail at this stage.
Order on Bail and Medical Aid
The court rejected the successive bail application, stating:
- The successive ACB Bail Application No. 759 of 2024 in ACB Remand Application No. 1081 of 2024 filed by applicant/accused Mangesh Namdev Rakshe in Crime No. 28/2024 stands rejected.
- Furthermore, the superintendent of Jail concerned is directed to provide required necessary medical aid urgently to the applicant as and when required as per provisions of jail manual and rules and intimate the Court its compliance.
- The successive ACB Bail Application No. 759 of 2024 in Remand Application No. 1081 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.
While bail was denied, the court directed the Jail Superintendent to provide immediate and necessary medical aid to Rakshe for his head injury, as per jail manual provisions. Rakshe will remain in judicial custody as the investigation into the bribery allegations continues.