CBI BA-603/24
1
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 603/2024
(Case No.RC 0262024A0034 of CBI, ACB, Mumbai)
(CNR No.: MHCC02-011853-2024)
Rajesh Kumar s/o. Indradev Singh
…Applicant/Accused
V/s
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
….Respondent.
CORAM:
DATED:
S.P.NAIK-NIMBALKAR
SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
(COURT ROOM NO.51)
06.08.2024.

Ld. Adv. Mr. Jaywant Avhad for accused.
Ld. PP Mr. Mayank Singh for CBI/ACB.
ORAL ORDER
1.

Accused Rajesh Kumar Singh s/o Indradev Singh has filed
bail application u/s.483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksh Sanhita, 2023.
FIR bearing CR RC0262024A0034 came to be registered by the CBI,
ACB, Mumbai on 02.08.2024 u/s. 7 of Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988 (As amended in 2018) (hereinafter shall be referred to as УP.C.
ActФ). The accused was arrested on 02.08.2024. He was produced on
03.08.2024 before this court. He was remanded to PCR for three days.
Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody since 17.08.2024.
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, the applicant is a
public servant working as Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Juhu
Santacruz Branch, Mumbai. It is alleged that, complainant Krishna
Kumar Tiwari applied for C.C. Loan of Rs.25,00,000/- in Union Bank of
India, Juhu Santacruz Branch, Mumbai. Accused demanded from the
2
CBI BA-603/24
complainant 5% of the loan amount i.e. Rs.1,25,000/- in advance to
pass the loan. During conversation he agreed to accept 4% of the loan
amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-. Verification of the complaint was conducted
as per the procedure on 02.08.2024. The instant case was registered. A
successful trap was laid on 02.08.2024. The trap team laid a trap and
nabbed the accused red handed for accepting unlawful gratification of
Rs.90,000/-. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the
possession of the accused.
3.

The bail is sought on the grounds that, the accused is
falsely implicated. Nothing was recovered from the residence or native
place of the accused. Therefore, the theory of demand is fabricated.
The applicant cannot be kept in custody.

There is no evidence to
support recovery of Rs.90,000/- from the personal search of the
accused, so accepted as unlawful gratification. The accused is ready and
willing to assist the investigation agency. He would not flee. He has
roots in society. He has no criminal antecedents to his discredit. Hence,
on all these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant/ accused may be
released on bail.
4.

The CBI has submitted reply at Exh.2. CBI has strongly
opposed the bail application. The objections of the CBI are that, there is
possibility that, if bail is granted, the accused will make efforts to
influence the complainant and other witnesses. He will destroy the
evidence yet to be collected. He is not liable for leniency. Lastly, it is
submitted to pass order as deem fit in the interest of justice.
5.

Heard both sides. Ld. Adv. Mr. Jaywant Avhad has
3
submitted along the line of his contentions.

CBI BA-603/24
He has relied on the
following case laws which I have considered along-with his contentions.
(i) Shri. P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019, AIR,
SC 5272
(ii) Manish Bedi Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 HLJ, (H.P)
64
(iii) Gagandeep Singh Sewadar (Peon) Vs. State of Punjab, 2024(1)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 174
(iv) Balvant Bhimjibhai Ladumor(Ahir) Vs. State of Gujarat, Law Finder
Doc 1668218
(v) Surinder Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another,
2024(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 577
(vi) Karti P. Chidambram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2016(5)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 514
6.

Ld. PP Mr. Mayank Singh has opposed the contentions of
the accused and has submitted along the line of his submissions.
7.

It is to be decided, as to whether the accused is entitled to
be released on bail pending investigation ? As per FIR and case record,
it is the case of the prosecution that, initial demand of Rs.1,25,000/was made by the accused and later on after negotiations it was reduced
to Rs.1,00,000/- and he was caught red handed in the trap proceedings
conducted by the CBI at his office on 02.08.2024. Recovery of tainted
currency notes of Rs.90,000/- was done from the accused. The accused
CBI BA-603/24
4
was granted three days P.C. It is on record that, his voice samples were
collected. It is also on record that, personal search and residence search
is done. There are no particulars of any sort of investigation, pending
with the accused. Further physical custody of the accused is not
necessary.
8.

No criminal antecedents of the accused are cited. The
accused is shown to be residing at Malad (W), Mumbai in the quarters
allotted by Union Bank of India. He has undertaken to cooperate with
the investigation agency. No purpose would be served by keeping the
accused in Jail.
9.

Thus, considering totality of the circumstances, a case is made
out by the accused for bail. However, considering the apprehension of
the CBI that, he would tamper with the prosecution witnesses and
evidence, certain conditions are necessary to be imposed on him.
Hence, the following order :ORDER
1
Bail Application No.603 of 2024 is allowed.

2
Applicant/ accused Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Indradev Singh
shall be released on his executing PR and SB bond of
Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only), with one or
two solvent sureties in the like amount.

3
The
applicant/accused
shall
furnish
his
permanent
residential proof to the CBI and shall not change his address
till conclusion of trial.
4
The applicant/accused shall also produce the proof of his
identity and proofs of residence at the time of executing bail
5
CBI BA-603/24
bonds. Accused to submit residential proof of two relatives or
local contacts, residing in Mumbai.
5
The applicant/accused shall not contact the prosecution
witnesses in any manner and will not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.

6
The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.

7
The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while on
bail.

8
Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused is directed to inform
the
above
conditions
to
the
applicant/accused
for
compliance.
9
In case of breach/default of any of the above condition by
the applicant/ accused, it would be viewed seriously and it
would entail cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/
accused.

10
Bail Application stands disposed off accordingly.
Digitally signed
by
NAIKNIMBALKAR NAIKNIMBALKAR
SAMARENDRA
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO
Date: 2024.08.08
16:13:23 +0530
Date 06.08.2024
Typed on 6.8.2024
Signed by HHJ on 6.8.2024
(S.P.NAIK-NIMBALKAR)
Special Judge (CBI)
Gr. Bombay (CR 51).

6
CBI BA-603/24
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.Ф
Date:-8.8.2024 at 4.10 pm
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(Typed by typist- Mrs.Nikita Shelke)
Uploaded by Nitin V. Ubale, Gr.1 Stenographer.

Name of the Judge (With Court room no.)

H.H.J. Shri. S. P. Naik-Nimbalkar (C.R. No. 51)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ ORDER
6.8.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on
6.8.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
8.8.2024