Exh.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE
(UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.67 OF 2015
(IN REMAND APPLICATION NO.33 OF 2015)
Shri Vijay Kasbe
…Applicant.

Vs.
State of Maharashtra
(through, Dahisar police station,
C.R.No.336 of 2015,
State CID, Navi Mumbai)
…Respondent
Appearances :н
Ld.Adv. Prashant Raul 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)
20th October,2015
ORDER
(Dictated in open Court)
Applicant/accused in the present crime i.e crime No.336 of 2015
registered at Dahisar police station for the offence punishable under
Section 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.
2.

It is contended that, crime bearing No.336 of 2015 is registered
against the applicant/accused on the allegations that, he has committed an
..2/н
.. 2 ..

ba 67/2015
offence punishable under various Sections of IPC and Prevention of
Corruption Act.

According to the accused he came to be arrested on
19.7.2015 and was produced before the Court on 20.7.2015. Thereafter,
he was remanded to police custody as well as to judicial custody from time
to time. It is contended that, the period of the accused in custody from
25.7.2015 is more than 90 days. The charge sheet is not filed within this
period i.e within 90 days, as such he is entitled for bail under Section
167(2)(a)(ii) of Cr PC after a period of 60 days. In fact, according to the
accused his case is governed by the provisions of Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of
Cr PC and is entitled for bail after expiry of 60 days period, if charge sheet
is not filed within this period. Even otherwise, he is in custody for more
than 90 days. The charge sheet is not filed. Therefore, according to him,
he is entitled for bail under Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr PC also.
3.

Applicant/accused has contended two things. According to him he is
entitled for bail after completion of 60 days in the custody as even charge
sheet is not filed during that period. According to him his case is covered
by the provisions of Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of Cr PC. In alternative the
applicant contended that, he is in custody since more than 90 days from
the date of his detention in custody and charge sheet is filed. Therefore,
even otherwise he is entitled for bail under Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr
PC. On these grounds accused prayed for bail.
4.

Learned Sp.P.P submitted that, case of the applicant/accused shall be
governed by the provisions of Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr PC and the
..3/н
.. 3 ..

ba 67/2015
period of 90 days would be applicable. It is contended that, the offence
alleged to have been committed by the accused is under Section 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.

The offence under Section
409,467 of IPC which alleged to have been committed by the accused is
punishable for imprisonment for life or for ten years and fine. As such the
provisions of Section Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of Cr PC would be applicable
in this case.
5.

Learned Sp.P.P further submitted that, the charge sheet is filed in the
Court within the period of 90 days. As such the applicant/accused does
not get the indefeasible rights as per the provisions of Section 167 (2) (a)
(i) of Cr PC. On these grounds learned Sp.P.P prayed for rejection of the
application.
6.

I have heard both the sides. To consider the rival contentions it is
necessary to see as to whether the provisions of Section 167 (2) (a) (i) of
Cr PC or Section 167 (2) (a) (ii) of Cr PC would be applicable in the
present case.
7.

The accused alleged to have been committed an offence punishable
under Sections 409,467 of IPC, including other sections of IPC and
Prevention of Corruption Act, as stated above. Section 409,467 of IPC are
punishable with imprisonment for life or for ten years and fine. In view of
punishment prescribed and in view of the observations of Hon.Bombay
High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Versus Ketan Sheth
Kantibhai Sheth another, (2003) 1 MhLJ 885 the period of 90 days
..4/н
.. 4 ..

would be applicable in the present matter.

ba 67/2015
The case of the
applicant/accused would be governed by the provisions of Section 167 (2)
(a)(ii) of Cr PC. 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
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
8.

In view of above observations and in view of the punishment
prescribed for the offenec alleged to have committed by the applicant/
accused, I find that the period of 90 days shall be applicable in the present
case. Admittedly, the accused is in custody since 19.7.2015. The period of
90 days was completed on 17.10.2015.
..5/н
.. 5 ..

9.

ba 67/2015
While filing the application it is submitted by the accused that the
charge sheet is not filed. Considering this submission I have called for
report from the office. Report of the office is on record. It is submitted in
the say that, charge sheet in the matter is filed in the Court on 16.10.2015.
It is submitted that, it is a huge charge sheet and it is under scrutiny.
However, report of Registrar (Sessions) dt.20.10.2015 would go to show
that, charge sheet is filed on 16.10.2015.
10.

In view of this report, it is clear that, charge sheet against the
present accused is filed in the Court before expiry of period of 90 days. It
is submitted by the learned advocate for the accused that charge sheet
though filed in the office is not reached to the Court and therefore, it
cannot be said that the charge sheet is filed in the Court. This contention
of the accused does not appear to be acceptable as the charge sheet is filed
in the office of the Court and it is under scrutiny. In view of this it cannot
be said that, charge sheet is not filed in the Court. As said report shows
that, charge sheet is filed and it is under scrutiny.

This shows that
investigation against the accused is completed within 90 days. In view of
this aspect of the matter, I do not accept the contentions of the accused.
11.

Charge sheet is filed before expiry of period of 90 days against the
present applicant.

As said earlier the case of the accused would be
governed by the provisions of Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr PC, for which
period of 90 days would have to be completed. As the charge sheet is filed
before expiry of period of 90 days, I do not find that, any right of bail
..6/н
.. 6 ..

ba 67/2015
under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of Cr PC is accrued to the accused and
therefore, accused has to be released on bail. In view of this, I do not find
that, accused is entitled for bail as prayed. Hence, the order :н
ORDER
Bail application is rejected.

(R.M.PANDE)
Special Judge (Under PC Act)
Dt.:20/10/2015
Dictated on
Typed on
GR.BOMBAY
: 20.10.2015
: 21.10.2015
kps/
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 20.10.2015
Order
Order signed by the P.O. on
:н 26.10.2015
Order uploaded on
:н 27.10.2015
..7/н
.. 7 ..

ba 67/2015
../н