BA 10-2017
1
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR
GR.BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2017
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.01 OF 2017
IN
ACB, GMU MUMBAI CR NO.65/2016
Mr.Satish Atmaram Athawale
Ageн29 years, Occ: Service
R/at: SahyadriнB, RC Marg,
Chembur, Mumbaiн74.

..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B.Worli,
C.R.No.65/2016, Mumbai)
..Respondent
Ld. advocate Mr.Sumedh Waghmare for the applicant
Ld. APP Mr.Lade for the State.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI S.V.RANPISE(CR NO.17)
DATE: 04/01/2017
Application for bail
ORAL ORDER
1.

Present application is filed by the applicant u/s. 439 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for bail in CR No.65 of 2016
filed in Remand Application No.01 of 2017 registered with A.C.B.
Mumbai for the offences punishable u/s. 7,12,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
BA 10-2017
2
of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered against this
applicant and other accused.
2.

Applicant has filed this application on the
ground that he was arrested in connection with the said offences
on 30/12/2016 and since then he is in custody. Now custodial
interrogation is over and therefore he has filed this application on
the following grounds:н
GROUNDS
That he is permanent resident of Mumbai, he is
falsely implicated in the present crime, he is
ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed
by the Court , he also undertakes to coнoperate
with the investigating machinery etc.,.
3.

State has filed say and raised objection on the
grounds that there is prima facie case against the applicant and
investigation is at preliminary stage, therefore State has prayed for
rejection of this application.
4.

Following points arise for my determination.
POINTS
5.
follows:н
1.

Is applicant entitled for bail as sought for?

2.

What order?
My findings thereon with reasons thereto are as
BA 10-2017
3
FINDINGS
1.

In the affirmative.

2.

As per final order.

REASONS
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate Mr.Waghmare for the
applicant and Ld. APP Mr.Lade for the State.
Point No.1
7.

From the submissions it is gathered that
custodial interrogation is over. Moreover, applicant is permanent
resident of Mumbai and he has has shown his ready and
willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. The
investigating officer Mr.Lodhi has submitted to impose condition of
attendance. Considering the said facts and circumstances and when
recovery is complete, I hold that though the State has raised
objection that investigating is at preliminary state and when the
offence attracted against this applicant is u/s.12 of The Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, I hold it proper to allow this application
by imposing certain conditions. So, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:н
ORDER
1.

Application is allowed.

2.

Applicant be enlarged on Bail on
executing P.R.Bond of Rs.20,000/н
(Rs.twenty thousand only) with one or
BA 10-2017
4
more solvent sureties in the like amount,
subject to the conditions that Applicant
should not leave Mumbai without prior
permission of this Court, should not
pressurize the witnesses, & tamper with
the evidence and should attend concerned
A.C.B. Office on every Tuesday and
Friday in between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
till filing of the chargeнsheet.

04/01/2017.

Ex.2
S.V.RANPISE
SPECIAL JUDGE,
UNDER P.C.ACT
MUMBAI.
Application filed by adv. Mr.Waghmare for cash
Security.
Court passed order below Ex.2:н
ORDER
Perused the application.
Say filed by A.P.P.
Heard Adv.Mr.Waghmare.
Application is allowed.
Applicant is allowed to submit provisionally
cash security of Rs.20,000/н for the period of
four weeks.
Registrar(S) is directed to accept the cash
after office hours.

BA 10-2017
5
04/01/2017.

S.V.RANPISE
SPECIAL JUDGE.

‘CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDERФ.

04/01/17 at 5.35 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
Name of the Judge
HHJ SHRI S.V.RANPISE, CR NO.17
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
04/01/2017
Judgment and order signed by P.O.

04/01/2017
Judgment/order uploaded on
04/01/2017