Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Special Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar (C.R. No. 46), has granted bail to Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri, who was arrested in connection with a bribery case involving Dongri Police Station. The bail application, ACB Bail Application No. 57 of 2022, was allowed on February 1, 2022.

Mansuri, identified as original accused no. 1, was in judicial custody since January 31, 2022. He was facing charges under Sections 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act) and 12 (punishment for abetment of offenses under Section 7) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in C.R. No. 3/2022 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

Prosecution’s Case

According to the prosecution, the informant, Abdul Rafiq Qadar Shaikh, a resident of Girgaon, Mumbai, approached the ACB after his cousin brother, Sajid Shaikh, was apprehended by accused no. 1, Public Servant Sanjiv Nimbalkar, with a ‘matka’ chit. Sajid was taken to Dongri Police Station, where both accused persons allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000.

The informant then contacted the ACB. After necessary formalities and verification of the demand on January 27, 2022, the informant was instructed to deliver an amount of Rs. 20,000 to the applicant-accused. A pre-trap panchanama was conducted, and a trap was laid, which, according to the prosecution, was successful. The applicant-accused, Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri, was allegedly caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 18,000. An additional Rs. 20,500 was also reportedly seized from his belongings. Mansuri was arrested and remanded to police custody from January 28, 2022, to January 31, 2022, before being taken into judicial custody until February 14, 2022.

Arguments for and Against Bail

Mr. Sameer D. Pradhan, the learned advocate representing the applicant, argued that his client is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He contended that Mansuri was known to both the informant and the co-accused, and he accepted the money in good faith, unaware that it was a bribe amount. The defense asserted that the investigation was largely complete, interrogation had been conducted, and Mansuri had cooperated with the police. Mr. Pradhan emphasized that his client has strong ties to the community, would not flee, and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court for bail.

The prosecution, represented by Mr. S. E. Soshte, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application. The primary ground for opposition was that the co-accused, Public Servant Sanjiv Nimbalkar, had tested positive for Covid-19 and was in quarantine, thus delaying further investigation with him. The prosecution expressed concerns that if released on bail, the applicant might pressurize the informant and witnesses, and potentially destroy evidence, thereby hampering the incomplete investigation.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

After hearing both sides and perusing the case record, Special Judge S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar acknowledged that, prima facie, the complicity of the applicant-accused with the offense was evident from the case record, particularly given that he was caught red-handed accepting the bribe amount, which was subsequently recovered.

However, the court then focused on the necessity of continued physical custody for the pending investigation. The judge noted that Mansuri had already been in police custody from January 28 to January 31, 2022, providing sufficient opportunity for custodial interrogation. Furthermore, his voice sample had been taken, and panchanamas were drawn. The court concluded that there were no circumstances indicating a continued need for the applicant’s physical custody for the investigation. While the prosecution argued that investigation with co-accused no. 2 was pending, his quarantine due to Covid-19 meant that Mansuri’s physical custody was not warranted for that aspect of the inquiry at present.

Addressing the prosecution’s apprehension regarding evidence tampering, the court pointed out that there was nothing in the Investigating Officer’s statement to suggest that the applicant had any previous criminal record or antecedents. Given that Mansuri resides at a known address in Mumbai, the court determined that the prosecution’s concerns could be adequately addressed by imposing specific terms and conditions.

Emphasizing the legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is an exception,” and considering the facts of the case, the applicant’s role, and the absence of any adverse criminal antecedents, the court found Mansuri entitled to bail. The judge stated that keeping him behind bars would serve no further purpose and that no exceptional circumstances had been pointed out by the prosecution to justify the rejection of bail.

Bail Conditions

The court allowed ACB Bail Application No. 57 of 2022 and ordered the release of Mohd. Ali Wali Mohd. Mansuri on his executing a Personal Bond (PB) and Surety Bond (SB) of Rs. 25,000, with one or more sureties in the like amount. The bail was granted subject to the following stringent conditions:

• The applicant must furnish his mobile/landline number, along with the mobile/landline numbers of two close relatives/friends and family members residing preferably in Mumbai, along with their residential proofs to the concerned police station. He is prohibited from changing his contact details until the conclusion of the trial.
• He must produce proof of his identity and proof of residence in Mumbai at the time of executing the bail bond.
• He 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 until the completion of the investigation.
• He shall cooperate with the police during the investigation and attend the concerned police station every Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon until the charge-sheet is filed.
• He shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.
• He shall not commit any offense while on bail.
• His advocate is directed to inform him of these conditions for compliance.
• Any breach or default of these conditions will be viewed seriously and may lead to the cancellation of his bail.

The application was accordingly disposed of.