1 B.A. No.607/2024 in R.A.No.771/2024
CCNR NO.MHCC02-011913-2024
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.607 OF 2024
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO.771 OF 2024
IN
(CRIME NO.07/2024)
Amit Giridhar Lalge
Aged: 44 years, and adult,
Occupation: Service (Sales Tax Officer),
Indian inhabitant, Residing at: B/26/4,
Government Colony, Near Udipi
Hotel, Bandra (East),
Mumbai- 400 051.

]
]
]
]
]
]
] … Applicant/Accused.

V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
]
Through The Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai,]
Having office at: Sixth Floor,
]
Sir Pochkhanawala Road, Worli Police Camp, ]
Worli, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 030.
] …Respondent/State.
Appearances :Adv. Mr. Mohan Tekavde
for applicant/Accused.

A.P.P. Mr. D.M. Lade
for respondent/State.

CORAM : HHJ ABHIJEET. A. NANDGAONKAR
SPECIAL JUDGE ACB, C.R.NO.45
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT,
GR. BOMBAY.
DATE : 14th August, 2024.

– 2 – B.A. No.607/2024 in R.A.No.771/2024
ORDER
The applicant/accused Amit Giridhar Lalge moved
this application for grant of bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in C.R. No.07/2024 registered
with ACB, Mumbai under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120(B), 403,
409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
02.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused submitted
that, they moved this application purely on law point. He
submitted that earlier bail application Exh.4 in ACB Remand
Application No.771/2024 came to be rejected on 24.07.2024 by
Court No.46. While considering the submissions it was not
pointed out the grounds against applicant in this application in
respect of arrest and detention as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, therefore, they preferred successive bail application.
03.

The applicant/accused came to be arrested in
C.R.No.07/2024 registered on 28.02.2024 with ACB, Mumbai
for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120(B),
403, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860. Applicant is a peace-loving, law-abiding, citizen of India
having permanent residents at Bandra, Mumbai. While deciding
earlier bail application the law settled down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was not pointed out to the knowledge of the
Court wherein the arrest and bail has been considered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha Versus State (NCT
– 3 – B.A. No.607/2024 in R.A.No.771/2024
of Delhi), 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 463 and Arvind Kejriwal versus
Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 576.
04.

Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused submitted that,
the law point raised in this application is that the applicant was
not informed the ground of arrest and also no reasons has been
assigned for his arrest. therefore, on these two legal points in
view of the above citations he prayed that accused be released
on bail. The applicant/accused is ready to abide all the terms
and conditions imposed by this Court for grant of bail. They
have not preferred appeal or other applications pending before
any of the Court in India. They have applied for successive bail
application in order to putforth legal provisions before the Court
and hence, submitted that considering the observations and
directions bail application be allowed.
05.

Say of I. O. and APP was called. The IO Mrs.

Manizha Zende (ACP) attached to ACB Department, Mumbai
through Ld. A.P.P. Mr. D.M. Lade submitted their reply at Exh.2.
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application by
submitting that the applicant is a public servant who in
connivance with the other accused have committed fraud of
Government amount to the tune of more than Rs.175 crores by
showing the G.S.T. Returns to 16 bogus companies through
other accused. During the investigation it was revealed that the
officer applicant/accused attached to G.S.T. without verifying
whether the Returns claimed by the 16 Companies is proper,
genuine and true and correct by making conspiracy with the
accused returned about Rs.175,93,12,622/-
to them through
their various accounts and thus loss caused to the Government
– 4 – B.A. No.607/2024 in R.A.No.771/2024
Exequy/treasury. Thus, considering the scope of investigation,
prima facie involvement of the accused grant bail to the
applicant/accused further investigation is going on is not proper.
06.

The prosecution also submitted that, while rejecting the
bail application by order dated 24.07.2024 below Exh.4 in ACB
Remand Application No.771/2024 of the applicant/accused all
the legal points has been considered and the relied authorities
has been dealt with properly and thus, the ground putforth is
not available to the applicant/accused to seek bail again on the
same grounds. Therefore, he submitted that bail application be
rejected.
07.

Heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Mohan Tekavde for the
applicant/accused and Ld. A.P.P. Mr. D.M. Lade for the State.
Also heard IO Mrs. Manisha Zende (ACP) attached to ACB,
Mumbai. Perused the documents and the authorities placed on
record.
08.

It is no doubt that while considering the law of
arrest and detention in the case of Prabir (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court has widened scope of arrest with the ground of
arrest and reason of arrest to be informed to the accused and
thus, any person arrested for allegations of commission of
offence under provision of UAPA or any other offence has hold a
fundamental right. Same observations was laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Arvind (supra) wherein also power of
arrest is henenced with pre conditions and requirements which
must be satisfied prior to arrest of a person.

– 5 – B.A. No.607/2024 in R.A.No.771/2024
09.

By observing the catena of judgments while dealing with
the provisions of PML Act Section 19, 19(1) and Section 45,
wherein it was observed that, “a higher threshold is required for
making an arrest, necessitating a review of the material
available to demonstrate the person’s guilt. Production of the
“reasons to believe” before the Special Court/magistrate, cannot
be construed and is not the same as furnishing or providing the
“reasons to believe” to the arrestee who has a right to challenge
his arrest in violation of Section 19(1) of the PML Act. The
arrestee may also challenge his arrest under Section 19(1) of
the PML Act on the basis of the “grounds of arrest”.
10.

Also in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), while
dealing with the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it was observed that,
“resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any
person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under
the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offences has
a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the
grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds
of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter
of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of
informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is
salutary and sacrosanct in as much as, this information would
be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his
Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail.
Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the
sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India.’
– 6 – B.A. No.607/2024 in R.A.No.771/2024
11.

In the light of above observation, the Ld. A.P.P.

submitted that, the order dated 24.07.2024 is specific enough
wherein the Court in para No.12 has dealt with each and every
point now raised in this bail application. Thus, no new ground
has been putforth but it is arm twisting procedure adopted by
the applicant/accused. He further submitted that in respect of
arrest on the date of arrest itself of the applicant/accused on
25/06/2024 at 12.40 the station diary has note been taken
informing the applicant/accused about the grounds of arrest and
reason of arrest in compliance of the directions of the Apex
Court. Thus, the law point now raised has no substance.
12.

After going through the submissions and the copy of
the order placed on record during the hearing by the Ld. Adv. for
the applicant/accused in para No.12 of the order it has been
specifically raised in respect of case law has been brought into
action. Also, the copy of station diary submitted by the A.P.P.
with application of enhancement of Section 109 in the
registered offence has clearly demonstrate the factual aspect of
informing the applicant/accused about grounds of arrest and
reason of arrest. Therefore, the successive bail application on the
law point as raised does not have substance and merit to hold
that the prosecution or investigation agency has not complied
directions of the authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court specifically
in Prabir Purkayastha Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and Arvind
Kejriwal versus Directorate of Enforcement.
13.

Thus, without touching to the merit of the matter as the
order dated 24.07.2024 is standstill and has not been challenged
– 7 – B.A. No.607/2024 in R.A.No.771/2024
and even the submission before this Court in respect of raising
of law point only does not substantiate entitlement of the
applicant/accused to be released him on bail. Considering the
nature of the offence registered as above, thus with due respect
to the observations and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the above cited authorities the compliance made by the
prosecution dis-entitled the applicant/accused to be released on
bail. Hence, application deserves to be rejected. Therefore, I
proceed to pass the following order:ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.607 of 2024 in ACB Remand
Application No.771
of
2024
arising
out
of
C.R.No.07/2024 under Sections 7, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections
120(B), 403, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered with ACB, Mumbai
stands rejected.
2.

Inform the concerned authority accordingly.

3.

Accordingly, Bail application No.607 of 2024 stands
disposed of.

DATE:-14/08/2024
Digitally signed
by ABHIJEET
ABHIJEET
ARVIND
ARVIND
NANDGAONKAR
NANDGAONKAR
Date: 2024.08.14
17:37:48 +0530
(ABHIJEET. A. NANDGAONKAR)
SPECIAL JUDGE ACB, C.R.NO.45
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, (I/c C.R.No.46)
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT,
FORT, GR. BOMBAY.

Dictated on
:- 14/08/2024
Transcribed on :- 14/08/2024
Signed on
:- 14/08/2024
– 8 – B.A. No.607/2024 in R.A.No.771/2024
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
14/08/2022 at 5.32 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
Name of the Judge ( With H.H.J. Shri.bAbhijeet A. Nandgaonkar
Court Room No.)
(Court Room No.45)
Date of Pronouncement of 14/08/2024.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed 14/08/2024.
by
P.O. on
JUDGMENT/ORDER
uploaded on
14/08/2024.