1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2017
Pramod Kumar s/o.
Rajendra Prasad Mohour,
… Applicant
V/s.
CBI, ACB, Mumbai.

..Respondents
Mr. Kuldeep Patil, Ld Advocate for applicant.
Mr Omprakash, Ld. SPP for CBI.
Coram:
Date
:
HH The Special Judge for CBI/The Addl.Sessions
Judge Shri. Hemant S.Mahajan (CR No.51).
15.03.2017
ORDER
1.

This is second application for enlarging applicant on regular bail
in offence registered vide C.R. No. RC BA1/2017/A0013 of 2017 for the
offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Prosecution case:н
2.

According to prosecution case, a written complaint dated
24.2.2017 addressed to Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Mumbai was
received from Mr. Shrikant Mehta resident of Flat No.201, Shivlok
Apartment, Ram Lane, Kandivali(W), Mumbai alleging therein that his
nephew Shreyas Desai is proprietor of M/s. Drishti Agencies, Shop No.3,
Ashiana CHS, Shantilal Modi Road, Kandivali, Mumbai since 2004 and he
is assisting him in the business. M/s. Drishti Agencies is a firm representing
overseas manufacturers as their all India distributors/ agents. The firm
primarily deals in specialty fertilizers and represents M/s. Sohar Sulphur
Fertilizer LLC, Sohar, Oman, manufacturer of sulphur based fertilizer in
2
India.

Further, during 2016, M/s. Sohar Sulphur Fertilizer LLC had
supplied sulphur to different importers in India through different ports. It
is alleged that, during 2016, Mr. Pramod, Inspector of Central Fertilizer
Quality Control & Training Institute, Faridabad, has demanded Rs.2 lacs as
illegal gratification from the complainant on behalf of Dr. Shailendra
Singh, Director, Central Fertilizer Quality Control & Training Institute,
Faridabad, to ensure that the samples of consignments of the company of
which M/s. Drishti Agencies is the agent will not be affected in future. Mr.
Pramod, Inspector, further instructed the complainant to arrange for his
stay and return ticket to Gandhidham.
3.

During verification proceedings vide panchanamas dated
24.2.2017 and 25.2.2017, conversation between the applicant and the
complainant came to be recorded.

It transpired demand of illegal
gratification of Rs.50,000/н and Rs.16,000/н in respect of samples passed
earlier as of now and Rs.4000/н (per container for future consignment) by
the applicant for himself and on behalf of Shailendra Singh, Director, from
the complainant. It is alleged that, prima facie, demand regarding bribe is
established from the said conversation. It is alleged that, the applicant
subsequently provided bank account details to the complainant informing
that the same is of his brother in law and directing the complainant to
transfer the amount of Rs.50,000/н and Rs.16,000/н to the said account.
Further, the applicant demanded illegal gratification of an amount of
Rs.7600/н incurred by him towards flight ticket and the amount to be
deposited in his personal bank account. It is alleged that, on 1.3.2017, an
amount of Rs.7500/н was deposited in the bank account of the applicant
3
towards bribe demanded by him towards flight tickets, charges and
Rs.16,000/н in the bank account of his brother in law towards demand of
Rs.4000/н each for four containers in respect of samples passed earlier. It
is alleged that thereafter the said deposit was confirmed vide recorded
conversation between complainant and the applicant.

As such, on
2.3.2017, the applicant then came to be arrested and produced before
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, who then remanded the applicant
under transit remand upto 6.3.2017. The applicant then produced before
this Court. Further in the light of aforesaid development and overtнact, the
offence came to be registered.
Application moved by applicant:н
4.

Applicant, now, has moved this application for getting regular
bail. According to the applicant, he is innocent and falsely implicated in
the matter.

He has pointed out that taking in to consideration police
custody period now no more custodial investigation is required. According
to him, the offence is not punishable with capital punishment. Further, the
applicant is permanent resident of Faridabad. It is further pointed out that,
while deciding earlier bail application, this Court has actually awarded
sufficient time for investigation to the investigating agency. According to
him, therefore, now there is no need to consider the objection raised by the
prosecution for granting bail. He has pointed out that on last date the
prosecution itself pointed out that investigation will be completed within
seven days.

He has pointed out that taking into consideration such
position, now, this is fit stage to enlarge him on bail. According to him,
he will cooperate with the investigating agency, if released on bail.

4
According to him, he is ready and willing to abide by the conditions if any
imposed by this Court and further will make himself available as and when
required for the purpose of investigation. He has assured that he will not
tamper with prosecution side evidence, if enlarged on bail. In light of all
these circumstance, the applicant has prayed for allowing the application
and enlarging him on regular bail.
Reply by prosecution:
5.

The prosecution has filed detailed reply and opposed the
application. According to prosecution, investigation is at initial and
preliminary as well as crucial stage and hence, if the applicant is enlarged
on bail then prejudice will be caused to the prosecution.

Further the
prosecution has pointed out the post which the applicant was holding and
submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail then it may create hurdle
during further investigation in the matter and there is every possibility of
influencing prosecution witnesses and it may result into tampering with
evidence. Finally, according to prosecution, the witnesses relating to the
case are yet to be examined and there are chances of influencing them at
the hand of the applicant. As such, by pointing out complexity of the
matter and stage of investigation, prosecution has opposed the application.
Argument on behalf of applicant:н
6.

So far as argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the applicant, it
is in the line of aforesaid submission. According to him, after three days’
police custody, the applicant was remanded in magisterial custody. It is his
case that it itself discloses that no more custodial investigation is now
5
required. According to him, actually at the request of prosecution this
Court has rejected first bail application and expected to conclude the
investigation within a week. It is therefore his case that now it is fit stage
to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that
the applicant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions if imposed
while granting bail to him. According to him, the applicant is ready to stay
in Mumbai till further investigation in the matter. In the light of all these
circumstances, he has prayed for allowing the application.
Argument on behalf of prosecution:н
7.

Per contra, Ld. SPP has opposed the application. He has pointed
out stage of the investigation. According to him, investigation is at
preliminary stage and at this stage, if applicant is enlarged on bail then it
will hamper on going investigation. He has pointed out that the witnesses
are yet to be examined and if the applicant is enlarged on bail, the on
going investigation will suffer. This is being the position, he has objected
the application.
8.

In the light of facts involved, arguments heard, the following
point arises for my consideration and I have noted my findings against
them for the following reasons:н
POINTS
FINDINGS
1. Whether the applicant is entitled
for getting regular bail?
2. What order?

..In the affirmative
.. As per final order
6
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS.1 & 2 :н
9.

Actually, if there is no change in circumstances then usually
subsequent application on same ground deserves to be rejected. However,
so far as present case is concerned, while argument in first bail application
bearing No.134/2017, on a query by this Court the prosecution side
pointed out that though investigation connected with the applicant to
some extent was over, still other investigation is going on and time would
be required for the same and prayed for rejection of said application. This
Court, therefore, had asked Ld. Counsel for the applicant to wait for
sometime and therefore after waiting for about more than one week
period, he then again moved present application. So far as reply filed by
prosecution, again it is reiterated that investigation is in progress and there
is every likelihood of tampering with evidence. In my mind, looking
towards such apprehension this Court has already remanded the applicant
in custody and sufficient time is granted to the prosecution to investigate
the matter thoroughly and particularly upto the root. In such
circumstances, now after availing such substantial period, it is not
desirable on the part of prosecution to again point out onнgoing
investigation in the matter. So far as apprehension expressed by the
prosecution, uptill today there is no any otherwise conduct on the part of
the applicant pointed out by prosecution which would compel this Court to
observe that he is interfering in the investigation.
10.

Applicant is the only breadнearner in his family. He is permanent
7
resident of India. He is having his roots in India. As such, looking towards
this position and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
Khemlo Sakharam Sawant V/s. State (2002 (1) Bom. C.R. 689), in my
mind, this is fit case wherein discretion needs to be exercised for enlarging
applicant on bail. Certainly, while doing so, for protecting interest of the
prosecution side, conditions can be imposed on the applicant. In the result,
I answer point under reference Уin affirmative’ and proceed to pass
following order:н
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.144/2017 is allowed.

2.

Applicant Pramod Kumar s/o. Rajendra Prasad Mohour is
hereby directed to be enlarged on bail and P.R. Bond of
Rs.50,000/н (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with one or more solvent
sureties in like amount.

3.

At the request of Ld. Counsel for the applicant, provisionally the
applicant be enlarged on depositing cash security of Rs.50,000/н
(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) and four weeks’ time is hereby
granted to the applicant for furnishing sureties in like amount,
as directed above.

4.

The applicant is directed not to leave India without prior
permission of this Court.

5.

The applicant is directed to furnish permanent addresses of his
two relatives and of himself as well as contact numbers so that
in case of need, investigating agency can approach the applicant.

6.

The applicant is directed not to tamper with prosecution side
evidence and further cooperate in onнgoing investigation of the
8
investigating agency.
7.

The applicant is further directed to surrender his passport, if
any, with investigating agency with a liberty to get it whenever
required with permission of this Court.

8.

The applicant is directed to attend office of the investigating
agency as and when called.

9.

Inform CBI accordingly.

10. Bail Appln. No.144/2017 stands disposed off accordingly.

Date: 15.3.2017
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
(Hemant S.Mahajan)
The Special Judge(CBI)/
The Addl.Sessions Judge,
Gr. Bombay (CR 51)
: 15.3.2017
: 15.3.2017
: 15.3.2017
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ ORDER.
UPLOADED ON :15.3.2017
TIME: 5.20 pm
(NITIN V. UBALE)
SELECTION GR. STENOGRAPHER.

Name of the judge (with Court Room Shri Hemant S. Mahajan, Spl. Judge
No.)
(CBI) & Addl. Sessions Judge (C.R. 51)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/ 15.3.2017
Order
Judgment/ order signed by P.O on
15.3.2017
Judgment/ order uploaded on
15.3.2017