Exh.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE
(UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2015
(IN REMAND APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2015)
Ms.Harshada Arun Bendre
…Applicant.

Vs.
State of Maharashtra
(through, Dahisar police station,
C.R.No.336 of 2015,
State CID, Navi Mumbai)
…Respondent
Appearances :н
Ld.Adv.Sanjeev Kadam and Adv. Yogesh Jaybhaye for the applicant.
Ld.Sp.P.P Pravin Chavan for the State.
CORAM :
DATED :
H.H.THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI R.M.PANDE
(C.R.NO.45)
27th October,2015
ORDER
(Dictated in open Court)
By this application applicant has prayed for bail under Section
167 (2)(a)(i) of Cr PC.
2.

Applicant is alleged to have been committed an offence punishable
under Sections 406, 408, 409,420,465,467,468,471,384,120нB r/w 34 of
IPC and u/S 7,13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, has
prayed for bail under Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr PC, accordingly crime
bearing No.336 of 2015 is registered with Dahisar police station.
..2/н
ba 69/2015
3.

.. 2 ..

RA 38/15
The applicant came to be arrested in connection with the said crime
and was produced before the Court on 26.7.2015. Since then the accused
was remanded in police custody and judicial custody from time to time. At
present applicant is in judicial custody. It is contended that, applicant is in
custody since 26.7.2015, the date on which he was produced before the
Court. It is contended that, more than 90 days period has been elapsed
and the charge sheet in the matter is not filed. According to the learned
advocate for the applicant the case of the applicant would be governed by
the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr PC. However, it is contended
that charge sheet is not filed either in 60 days or in 90 days and therefore,
applicant is entitled for bail. As such, applicant as per title column of the
application, has prayed for bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr PC and
167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr PC.
4.

On this application, I have called for report of the office. Office of
this Court filed report on 27.10.2015. Wherein it is contended that, charge
sheet is filed on 16.10.2015 at 5.00 p.m. It is further mentioned in the
report that, the charge sheet is checked, but it is pending for removal of
certain queries made by the office to the Investigating Officer. Apart from
this the report shows that, charge sheet is filed on 16.10.2015.
5.

Learned Sp.P.P also submitted that, charge sheet is filed. When this
fact is brought to the notice of the learned advocate for the applicant/
accused, it is submitted that charge sheet is filed on 16.10.2015.
6.

It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant/accused
..3/н
ba 69/2015
.. 3 ..

RA 38/15
that, though charge sheet is filed on 16.10.2015 it is not received in the
Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that, charge sheet is filed in the Court.
According to the learned advocate for the applicant as the charge is not
filed (received) by the Court, it cannot be said that, charge sheet is filed
and therefore, she is entitled for bail in default.
7.

Learned Sp.P.P submitted that charge sheet is filed in the office and it
is under scrutiny and therefore, it cannot be said that charge sheet is not
filed within 90 days. It is contended that, the contentions of the applicant
cannot at all be accepted.
8.

I have heard both the sides.

9.

The offence alleged to have been committed by the applicant/
accused is under Sections 409,467 and various Sections of IPC as well as
Prevention of Corruption Act. Considering the punishment prescribed for
the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 467 of IPC, which may
extend imprisonment for life and fine, I find that contentions of the
applicant would be governed by the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of
Cr PC.

Therefore, the period of 90 days, as prescribed under Section
167(2)(a)(i) of Cr PC would be applicable. For this purpose reliance can
be placed on the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Ketan Sheth
Kantibhai Sheth another, (2003) 1 MhLJ 885. The relevant observations
of the Hon.Bombay High Court in the cited case are as under,
У…The meaning of the words, Уterm not less than 10
..4/н
ba 69/2015
.. 4 ..

RA 38/15
yearsФ as already been construed by the Apex Court so as
to mean У10 years or moreФ. If an offence is punishable
with imprisonment for life, it necessarily means that the
offence is punishable for a period which is 10 years or
more. The fact that, there is an alternative provision of
punishment for a term which may extend to 10 years, does
not make the offence one in which a punishment of 10
years or more cannot be granted, when punishment of
imprisonment of life contemplated is one of the mode of
the punishment by the section itself. The argument that it
is not the maximum punishment which must be taken into
consideration but it is the minimum term of punishment
which can be imposed, which needs to be taken into
consideration for deciding as to whether the offence is one
contemplated under section 167(a)(i) has no merits…Ф
10.

In view of above, as I have already observed that, contentions of the
accused would be governed by the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of
Cr PC, now it will have to be seen as to whether the charge sheet is filed
within the period of 90 days. Applicant/accused came to be arrested on
25.7.2015 and was produced before the Court on 26.7.2015. The period
of limitation would start running from 27.7.2015.

If this date is
considered then the period of 90 days would come to an end on
23.10.2015. As per the report, as said earlier, charge sheet came to be
filed on 16.10.2015 i.e on 83rd day, which is well within the 90 days of the
prescribed period as per provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr PC.
..5/н
ba 69/2015
11.

.. 5 ..

RA 38/15
Contentions of the applicant that it cannot be said that, charge sheet
is filed in the Court, as it is not received in the Court hall, does not appear
to be acceptable as it has been received by the office of this Court and it is
under scrutiny. When charge sheet is filed in the office of the Court, in my
opinion it cannot be said that, charge is not filed in the Court. In view of
this I do not accept the argument of the learned advocate for the applicant
in this behalf.
12.

As said earlier, contentions of the accused would be governed by the
provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr PC.

The charge sheet is filed
within the period of 90 days. As the charge sheet is filed within the period
of 90 days, I do not find that, accused is entitled for bail as prayed, as per
provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr PC. The applicant is not entitled
for bail under the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr PC also as the
period of 90 days would be applicable in this case. The contentions of the
accused fail on both the counts. As such, I pass the following order:н
ORDER
Bail application is rejected.

(R.M.PANDE)
Special Judge (Under PC Act)
Dt.:27/10/2015
Dictated on
Typed on
GR.BOMBAY
: 27.10.2015
: 27.10.2015
kps/
..6/н
ba 69/2015
.. 6 ..

RA 38/15
УI affirm the contends of this PDF file order are the
same, word to word, as per the original orderФ
Name of Steno with post
:н Kishor Prakash Sherwade
Stenographer (H.Gr.)

Name of the Judge (with :н Ravindra M. Pande, (C.R.No.45)
Court No.)
Addl.Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay
Date of pronouncement of :н 27.10.2015
Order
Order signed by the P.O. on
:н 27.10.2015
Order uploaded on
:н 7.11.2015
../н