:1:
Bail Appl. No. 56/2018
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2018
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 52 OF 2018
(R.C. No. BA1/2018/A0003, CBI, ACB, Mumbai)
ASHISH PARMATHANAND THAKUR,
Aged 30 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Working as Assistant Section Officer,
AdнII Section, Central Board of Excise and
Customs (CBEC), Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi and residing at Flat No. 103,
Gally No. 4, Radhey Shyam Park, Preet Vihar,
New Delhi, 51.
(At present lodged in the custody of
Central Bureau of Investigation).

Applicant/
Orig. Accused
V/s.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
ACB, Mumbai.

Respondent/
Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE,
(C. R. No. 51).

DATED :
23rd January, 2018.

Mr. Subhash Jha @ Mr. Hare Krishna Mishra, Ld. Advs. for the applt./orig. accd.

Mr. Omprakash, Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/ACB/Respdt.

ORAL ORDER
1
This is an application placed by the applicant/original
:2:
Bail Appl. No. 56/2018
accused for bail u/sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against
whom the offence punishable u/sec. 7 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 has been registered by CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
2
Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant/original accused and Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respondent. The
Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has reiterated the contents of
application. The prosecution has raised objection to grant prayer in the
application. It has given say on the application. I have perused the
application
and
applicant/accused.

documents
produced
on
behalf
of
the
I have also perused the say given by the
prosecution.
3
the
The applicant/accused has contended that few months back
coнaccused
S.K.

Swaminathan
had
approached
the
applicant/accused in his office for favorable consideration of his file
pertaining to promotion to the rank of Assistant Commissioner, which
was pending on account of certain disciplinary proceeding initiated
against him. It is alleged by the CBI that the applicant/accused, who
works as Assistant Section Officer, ADнII Section, Central Board of
Excise and Customs (CBEC), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi had
demanded illegal gratification from the coнaccused S.K. Swaminathan,
working as Superintendent, CBEC at GST, Old Customs House, Mumbai
for favorably managing/processing his file for promotion.

There is
neither any evidence that the applicant/accused had demanded illegal
gratification from the coнaccused S.K. Swaminathan, nor any recovery
has been effected from the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused is
in service and thus, has deep root in the society and there is absolutely
no possibility of his fleeing or absconding away from the course of law.

:3:
Bail Appl. No. 56/2018
There is absolutely nobody in the family to take care.

Hence, the
applicant/accused has prayed to allow the application.
4
The prosecution has contended that the applicant/accused
has demanded illegal gratification from S.K. Swaminathan for favorable
managing his promotion matter in lieu of which, he has approached few
months back to the applicant/accused. The applicant/accused engaged
one Ravindra Kumar Mandal to accept the aforesaid illegal gratification
from S.K. Swaminathan. The trap was laid and the accused persons
were caught while delivery of illegal gratification. There is sufficient
evidence on record. The investigation of the case is at initial stage. If
the applicant/accused is released on bail, it will hamper the progress of
investigation. The crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, the
prosecution has prayed to reject the application.
5
It appears from the record that in the present case, the
applicant/accused has been arrested for the offence punishable u/sec. 7
& 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been argued on
behalf of the investigating authority that the crucial witnesses are yet to
be examined and the applicant/accused may influence the witnesses
and may tamper with the evidence.

It has to be seen that all the
accused were already arrested and they were released on temporary
bail. The investigation indicates that it is nearly completed. There is no
possibility of absconding of the applicant/accused.

It has to be
remembered that the applicant/accused is a public servant and he is
having permanent job in government.

Moreover, there will be no
propriety to keep the applicant/accused behind bar.

An offence
registered, is only u/sec. 7 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
There is no ground to presume that the applicant/accused may tamper
:4:
Bail Appl. No. 56/2018
with the evidence or scuttle the process of investigation. Obviously, the
purpose of securing bail is to procure presence of accused during the
trial. The presence of applicant/accused can be secured by imposing
condition.

The trial will take its own time.

Moreover, the
applicant/accused has assured to coнoperate the investigating officer as
and when required and attend the trial. The nature of offence is such
that custody of applicant/accused for further investigation is not
required. If he is kept in custody, there will be every possibility of his
coming in contact with harden criminals. However, considering the
gravity of offence, heavy surety is require to be taken from the
applicant/accused.

Therefore, in
the
interest
of
justice,
the
applicant/accused can be released on bail subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :н
ORDER
1
Bail Application No. 56/2018 in CBI Remand Application
No. 52/2018 (RC No. 03(A)/2018нCBI, ACB, Mumbai) is hereby
allowed.
2
Applicant/original
accused
SHRI.

ASHISH
PARMATHANAND THAKUR is hereby directed to be released on
executing P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000/н (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only).
Further, he is hereby directed to furnish one or more sureties of the like
amount within three months.
3
Applicant/accused is directed not to leave India without
obtaining prior permission from this Court.
4
Further, till furnishing surety, the applicant/accused is
:5:
Bail Appl. No. 56/2018
directed to surrender his passport, if any, with CBI.
5
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish his permanent
address as well as permanent contact numbers to the CBI.
6
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish addresses of
his two relatives and their permanent addresses and contact numbers to
the CBI.
7
Applicant/accused is further directed not to tamper with
the prosecution evidence and to assist in disposal of trial.
8
Applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
9
Breach of any of the above conditions will amount to
cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.
10
Applicant/accused is hereby directed to remain present
before investigating officer on every Tuesday in between 10.00 a.m. to
4.00 p.m. till further order.
11
The Registrar (Sessions) is hereby directed to accept the
cash amount of bail After Treasury Hours.
12
Earlier interim cash bail granted vide order dated
19/01/2018 will be continued till furnishing fresh surety/ies.

:6:
13
Bail Appl. No. 56/2018
Bail Application No. 56/2018 in CBI Remand Application
No. 52/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court.)

(Jayendra C. Jagdale)
The Special Judge for CBI,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

Dated : 23/01/2018
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
: 23/01/2018
: 24/01/2018
: 24/01/2018
:
:7:
Bail Appl. No. 56/2018
УCertified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
judgment/orderФ.
Upload Date & Time : 24/01/2018 at 5.00 p.m.
Smt. G. K. Kotawadekar
Name of the Stenographer
H.H.J. SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE (C. R. No. 51)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order :н23/01/2018
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :н24/01/2018
Judgment/order uploaded on :н24/01/2018