IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.559 OF 2017
IN
CBI REMAND APPLICATION NO.825 OF 2017
Deepak Prem Kumar, aged 26 yrs.
R/o. R/Z, 38 A, Block УCФ, Old Roshan Pura
Ext. Najafgarh, New Delhi 110043
V/s.
The State (Through CBI/ACB, Mumbai.)
No. RC BA 1/2017/A0026н Mumbai,
dated 08/09/2017
)
)
)..Applicant/Accused
)
)
)..Respondent/CBI, ACB
Appearance :
Ld.Adv. Mr. Govind Prajapati for applicant/accused.
SPP Mr. Fareed for the respondent/CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
SHRI VIVEK V. KATHARE
DATE : 18/09/2017 (C.R.NO.53)
ORAL ORDER
1.

The applicant/accused has applied for bail u/s.439 of
Cr.P.C., in respect of his arrest u/s.7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, by Officers of respondent/CBI, ACB, Mumbai, in
RC No. BA 1/2017/10026, registered on 08/09/2017.
2.

In nutshell, the prosecution story reveals that on the basis
of typed written complaint dated 08/09/2017, by Ashish Shah, partners
of M/s. Moon Machinery Mart, Fort, Mumbai, against the present
applicant/accused, working as Inspector, Central Tax (CGST), Division
VIII, Air India Building, Mariman Point, he demanded Rs.5,000/н from
the complainant for processing & issuing bond acceptance letter for
export.
3.

It is the prosecution case that as the complainant was not
willing to pay bribe amount and therefore, complained with CBI, ACB,
..2..

..2 ..

Mumbai, a trap was led.

The verification in respect of the alleged
demand of amount was done and the applicant/accused was caught
redнhanded by accepting the part bribe amount of Rs.4,000/н, on
09/09/2017.
4.

The grounds urged in the bail application reveals that the
applicant/accused is not having any criminal antecedents, all the
recovery has already done by the Investigating Machinery and nothing
left to be recovered from the applicant/accused. He has fixed roots in
the society and would not abscond and ready to abide by the terms &
conditions imposed by the Court. He is ready to coнoperate with the
Investigating Agency. Hence, prayed for allowing the application.
5.

The respondent/CBI resisted the application by filing their
Reply dated 14/09/2017, interнalia alleging that the applicant/accused
was caught redнhanded while accepting the bribe amount from the
complainant. Also certain incriminating record has been seized from
the office cabin of the applicant/accused.

The Investigating Officer
needs to record the statement of witnesses.

The offence charged
against the public servant is grave and serious in nature.

The
prosecution apprehends that the applicant/accused would tamper with
the evidence and would abscond in the event of his release on bail.
Hence, prayed for rejection of the application.
6.

Having heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties, it is
seen that the applicant/accused was apprehended while accepted bribe
amount of Rs.4,000/н for the purpose of processing & issuing the Bond
Acceptance Letter for Export.

..3..

..3 ..

7.

As revealed from the remand papers and Say filed by
respondent/CBI, all the recovery in the case has been done and there
remains nothing to be seized at the instance of applicant/accused. Also
the voice sampling and the handwriting of the applicant/accused has
been taken by the Investigating Officer.

The contention of the
prosecution that the Investigating Officer is yet to record the statements
of material witnesses and in the event of release of applicant/accused
on bail, he would either tamper with the record or influence the
witnesses. However, it is seen that admittedly, all the related record
has been seized by the Investigating Officer and there is no substance in
the contention that the applicant/accused would influence his higher
ups, whose statements is to be recorded by the Investigating Officer.
8.

It is further seen that the applicant/accused has fixed place
of abode, permanent employment & his family to look after and in the
circumstances of the case, he would not abscond. Further, no purpose
is going to serve by detaining the applicant/accused behind the bars.
The apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant/accused would
abscond can be duly taken care of by imposing reasonable restrictions
on the liberty of the applicant/accused.
9.

In view of the above, the application deserves to be
allowed in terms of following order :н
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.559/2017 in CBI Remand Application No.825/2017,
filed by the applicant/accused Deepak Prem Kumar, is hereby allowed.

2.

The applicant/accused, arrested in Case No. RC BA1/2017/A00026н
Mumbai, dated 08/09/2017, at the instance of CBI, ACB, Mumbai, be
released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond of Rupees Fifteen thousand
..4..

..4 ..
only with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, on the following
conditions :
a.

The applicant/accused shall mark his attendance with the
Investigating Officer as & when required under written intimation
by the Investigating Officer, till further orders.

b.

The applicant/accused shall furnish his permanent residential
address alongwith documentary proof of his address & cell number
of himself and his two close relatives and change in address, if any.

c.

The applicant/accused shall not leave the territory of India without
prior permission of this Court and surrender his Passport, if any, to
the Registrar Sessions, as condition precedent for his release on bail.

d.

The applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or any promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact
to the Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

e.

The applicant/accused shall not indulge into any criminal activities
during the bail.

3.

In the event of breach of any of the conditions as above, the prosecution
is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail.

4.

In view of the prayer made by the applicant/accused to enlarge him on
cash bail in lieu of surety, he is released on furnishing the cash bail of
Rupees Fifteen Thousand only and the time of four weeks from today has
been granted to furnish the regular surety.

5.

Application is hereby disposed off accordingly.

(Pronounced in open Court)
Mumbai:
Date: 18/09/2017
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 18/09/2017.
: 28/09/2017.
:
(VIVEK V. KATHARE)
Special Judge (CBI)
Court Room No.53, Gr. Bombay.

..5..

..5 ..

УCertified to be true and correct copy of the original signed orderФ.
28/09/2017
at about 5.30 p.m.

(Mrs. Vidya Abhijit Mande)
Stenographer (H.G.)
Court Room No.53
Name of the Hon’ble Judge
: Shri. Vivek V. Kathare
(Court Room No.53)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
: 18/09/2017
Judgment/Order signed by Hon’ble Judge on : 28/09/2017
Judgment/Order uploaded on
: 28/09/2017.

at about 5.30 p.m.

….