IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.543 OF 2017
IN
CBI REMAND APPLICATION NO.809 OF 2017
Rajesh Savalaram Langhe, aged 36 yrs.
R/o. Flat No.503, Krupasai, Coнop. Housing
Society, Datar Colony, Bhandup(E),
Mumbai 400 042.
V/s.
The State (Through CBI/ACB, Mumbai.)
No. RC BA/ 1/2017/A0025н Mumbai,
dated 01/09/2017
)
)
)
)..Applicant/Accused
)
)
)..Respondent/CBI, ACB
Appearance :
Ld.Adv. Mr. Yogesh Dalvi for applicant/accused.
SPP Mr. R. N. Sharma for the respondent/CBI, ACB.
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
SHRI VIVEK V. KATHARE
DATE : 06/09/2017 (C.R.NO.53)
ORAL ORDER
1.

The
applicant/accused
above
named
preferred
an
application u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., on account of his arrest in a crime
bearing
No.RC
BA/1/2017/A0025н
Mumbai,
dated
01/09/2017,
registered with CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
2.

The applicant/accused, on account of his arrest produced
before the Court on 02/09/2017 and was remanded to CBI Custody till
04/09/2017. In a subsequent remand filed by CBI, the applicant/accused
was taken into MCR till 18/09/2017 and he is in Judicial Custody till date.
3.

It is contended that the applicant/accused has been falsely
implicated in the case and he is an innocent person. There is no direct
evidence or material on record to prove the allegations leveled against the
..2..

..2 ..

applicant/accused. Considering his tender age and no criminal antecedent
to his discredit and he being the permanent resident of Mumbai, would not
abscond. The applicant/accused is the only bread earner of the family and
his family would be gravely prejudiced in the event of rejecting his Bail
Application. The applicant/accused expressed his readiness to coнoperate
with the Investigating Agency. Hence, the application.
4.

The respondent/CBI resisted the application by filing their
Reply. It is contended that the applicant/accused is a Fleet Manager of
M/s. Crowley Accord, (Recruitment & Placement of Seafarers License
Holder Company) at Andheri (E), Mumbai. The complaint is lodged at
the instance of Ashish Sharma, Electrical Officer, on the ground that the
applicant/accused demanded bribe of Rs.90,000/н, for arranging a job
with Shipping Company. Therefore, a trap was led on 01/09/2017 and
the applicant/accused was caught red handed while demanding &
accepting the bribe of Rs.24,000/н. The recorded conversation reveals
the incident to that effect.

The verification proceeding dated
01/09/2017, transpirs that the applicant/accused had agreed to accept
a bribe of Rs.50,000/н from the complainant for managing his
placement and for return of the documents.
5.

It is further submitted that the investigation is at initial &
at very crucial stage and the witnesses relating to the case are yet to be
examined and accused may influenced the witnesses and may tamper
with the prosecution evidence. The accused may abscond and evade
the process of law in the event of his release on bail. Hence, prayed for
rejection of the application.

..3..

..3 ..

6.

Having heard the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and
considering the nature of accusations visнaнvis, the severity of the
punishment prescribed for the offences charged, the claim for the
release of applicant/accused on bail needs to be considered.
7.

The Ld. Prosecutor has submitted that the accusations
leveled against the applicant/accused are grave & serious in nature and
entailing the punishment upto five years. It is further submitted that
the investigation in the case is in progress and in the event of release of
applicant/accused on bail, it would gravely hampered the progress in
the investigation and there is every likelihood of absconding of the
applicant/accused from the process of law.
8.

As against this, the Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the
applicant/accused has permanent employment and fixed place of abode
within the jurisdiction of this Court and the applicant/accused has been
falsely implicated in the case. He being the only bread earner in the
family deserves to be released on bail on the conditions deem fit by the
Court.
9.

The basic contention of the prosecution while opposing the
application is that the investigation is at the crucial stage and yet not
completed and the accused person would either influence the witnesses
and tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also cause the
disappearance of the evidence of offence and on that count praying for
rejection of the application.

..4..

..4 ..

10.

However, it needs to observe that from the recitals of
subsequent Remand Application dated 04/09/2017, the Investigating
Officer has categorically admitted that several articles connected with
the crime, including the Hard Disk used by the applicant/accused have
been seized, the voice specimen of the applicant/accused was obtained,
the specimen handwriting/signatures of the applicant/accused was also
obtained, the Call Data Record (CDR) of the complainant and the
applicant/accused, are also obtained from the service provider. Thus,
the major recovery of the incriminating articles have been completed by
the Investigating Officer. What remains is the enquiry with the Officers
of the Marine Mercantile Department at DG Shipping, who allegedly
involved in the commission or in the abatement of the offence. In the
circumstances, there is no likelihood for the applicant/accused either to
influence those witnesses or to tamper with the record, which has
already been seized by the Investigating Officer.
11.

Further, considering the fact that the applicant/accused has
permanent place of abode and having an employment in the locality
over which this Court exercises its jurisdiction and the fact that the
applicant/accused has a family to look after and he being the only
bread earner in the family, no fruitful purpose would serve by detaining
the applicant/accused behind the bars. As observed supra, the crucial
part of the investigation is already over and the application therefore,
deserves to be allowed. At the same time, the apprehension of the
prosecution that in the event of release of applicant/accused, he would
abscond and would not be available during the trial, can be duly taken
care by imposing the reasonable restrictions on the liberty of
..5..

..5 ..

applicant/accused, while releasing on bail.
12.

Hence, the application deserves to be allowed in terms of
following order :н
ORDER
1. Bail
Application
No.543/2017
in
CBI
Remand
Application
No.809/2017, filed by the applicant/accused Rajesh Savalaram
Langhe, is hereby allowed.
2. The applicant/accused, arrested in Case No. RC BA/ 1/2017/A0025н
Mumbai, dated 01/09/2017, at the instance of CBI, ACB, Mumbai, be
released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond of Rupees Fifty thousand
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
..6..

..6 ..

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 Fifty 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: 06/09/2017
Dictated on
: 06/09/2017.
Transcribed on : 08/09/2017.
Signed on
:
(VIVEK V. KATHARE)
Special Judge (CBI)
Court Room No.53, Gr. Bombay.

..7..

..7 ..

УCertified to be true and correct copy of the original signed orderФ.
11/09/2017
at about 11.00 a.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
: 06/09/2017
Judgment/Order signed by Hon’ble Judge on : 08/09/2017
Judgment/Order uploaded on
: 11/09/2017.

at about 11.00 a.m.

….