BA.No.648/2021 Remand Appl.No.778/2021

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE, C.B.I. AT GREATER BOMBAY
ORDER BELOW BAIL APPLICATION NO. 648 OF 2021 IN C.B.I. REMAND APPLICATION NO.778 OF 2021
IN RC NO.0262021A0010 of C.B.I A.C.B. Mumbai. (CNR. NO. MHCC02-009058-2021)

Gajanan Sharad Joshi
Age- 59 years,
R/at- Central Railway Quarter,
Bldg. No.6, Flat No.9, Dadar (East),
Opp. King Jorge School,
Mumbai-400 014. .. Applicant/Accused.

VERSUS

C.B.I. A.C.B., Mumbai. ..Respondent/Complainant.

Ld. Advocate Mr. V. N. Shingnapurkar @ Ld. Advocate Mr. Amit A. Kadam for the Applicant/Accused.
Ld. P.P Mr. P. K. B Gaikwad for C.B.I./Respondent.

CORAM: HIS HONOUR SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI. V.C. BARDE (Court Room No. 50) DATE : 30th July, 2021. ORDER

1.The accused has moved this application for grant of bail under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), who has been arrested and is in judicial custody since 24/07/2021, for the offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, ‘P.C. Act’).

2. C.B.I. A.C.B., Mumbai, registered F.I.R. on 23.07.2021 against both the accused in this case, wherein the complainant-Contractor of Indian Railway running Pay and Use Toilets, complained against the accused persons that accused no.1-Gajanan Sharad Joshi instructed him to pay Rs.25,000/- so as to smoothly carry forward contract and was demanding Rs.5000/- per month for the purposes, of whom accused no.2 is attendant.

It is alleged that accused no.1 has powers to recommend the cancellation of contract. C.B.I. verified the complaint in presence of independent panch witnesses, along with the conversation between complainant and accused no.1, as also accused no.2 being his attendant, and it was established that bribe of Rs.10,000/- was demanded from the complainant by accused. On the above complaint and after its verification on 24/07/2021, trap was laid and accused persons were caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/-, who were arrested and produce before the Special Court on 25/07/2021, and since then they are in judicial custody.

3.The case of the accused alongwith grounds for grant of bail is that he has completed 41 years of service in Railways without single allegation against him. He has unblemished service record.

After arrest on 24.07.2021, he has assisted and co-operated with Investigating Agency-C.B.I. He is ready to assist and co-operate in the investigation as is required by them. He comes from respectable family and there are no criminal antecedents against him. He is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions, if any, imposed by the Court while releasing him on bail. The respondents have already conducted searches of office and residential premises of the applicant and have seized documents required by them for investigation. Therefore, he submitted to release him on bail subject to conditions as his family is dependent on him.

4.In the say filed by the prosecution, in parawise reply, they have denied the grounds on which bail is sought by the accused. It is contended that releasing the accused will affect the pace of investigation.

They have opposed the bail on the grounds that the accused is in service with Central Railway for very long period, and therefore, will try to threaten the complainant. He may try to influence the Railway Officials and other private persons, to not identify his voice for matching with the voice recorded during trap proceedings, once he is released on bail at this stage. Not even a single witness has been
examined till date and lot of information can surface revealing involvement of other officers/officials in regular collection of bribe amount from the affected persons.

The documents seized from his residence during search are being scrutinized and various additional
information may surface which could not be useful if he is released, as he may influence or threaten the concerned officials/persons. His voice sample could not be obtained during his one day custody, and if he is released on bail he may try to avoid giving his voice sample and avoid joining investigation. During verification of complaint, clear demand of bribery is confirmed and he accepted the bribe amount through his accomplice peon.

If he is released on bail at this stage, he will influence and adversely affect the investigation. The prosecution did not ask police custody of the accused persons due to detection of Covid positive report of accused no.2. Hence, they could not examine and interrogate the accused persons. If he is released on bail, he may not join and co-operate in the investigation. The prosecution submitted to reject the application.

5. Heard the learned Advocate for the accused and learned P.P. for C.B.I. Perused the record of the case.

6.Learned Advocate for the accused submitted that accused was arrested and he is in custody since 24.07.2021, in a case in which the alleged trap was laid and the investigation is complete. He submitted
that in view of the custody of accused for more than 48 hours, he is deemed to be suspended from services of Central Railway, and there is no question of threatening or influencing the witnesses. He submitted that the accused may be subjected to terms and conditions with regard to non-interference in the investigation, and detaining him in custody further is not required. He submitted that even the accused may be called by C.B.I. for voice sample and that the accused is ready to cooperate in investigation. The learned Advocate submitted that this is a case of demand of bribe, laying of trap, and apprehension of accused wherein all the investigation in above respects is carried out, and now,
if any further investigation is to be made by Investigating Officer, the accused is ready to co-operate therein.

The learned Advocate submitted to release the accused subject to terms and conditions. He
submitted that the family of accused is dependent on him, and there is no likelihood of his tampering evidence, threatening the witnesses or fleeing away from justice.

He submitted that both the accused are employees of Central Government.

7.The learned P.P. for C.B.I. has orally argued on the grounds as alleged, as well as filed written notes of arguments mentioning facts of the case regarding filing of complaint and registration of F.I.R.,
verification and confirmation of demand from the complainant by C.B.I., acceptance of bribe by accused persons and recovery thereof from possession of accused no.2 and drawing of detailed panchanama
thereof. He submitted that there is a prima facie material against the accused persons. He relied on the conversations recorded in Micro SDcard at Exhibit-A showing that the accused made demand of bribe from the complainant. He relied on further Exhibits-B, C, C1, D, D1, and H in respect of the proceeding laying trap and catching both the accused red-handed. He submitted that in view of the recorded conversations of the accused in this case, it has become necessary to obtain voice samples of both the accused.

He further submitted that there are incidents of demanding bribe by accused persons from hawkers, parcelservicemen, canteen staff, vendors of stalls, private contractors and ladies staff of complainant who was asked to pay bribe daily.

The accused adopted modus operandi to collect bribe from various above persons carrying on business in Central Railway premises.

He submitted that charges against the accused are very serious, who will influence the witnesses. Both the accused entered into conspiracy and collected huge bribe amount. He submitted that the prosecution has to unearth the modus operandi adopted by both the accused to collect
amounts from various persons. He submitted that the averments in the F.I.R./complaint established the specific role played by the accused persons.

Allegations therein are serious in nature and prima facie disclosed commission of cognizable and non-bailable offences, in which punishment prescribed is up to seven years, in which investigation is at
an initial stage. As the matter is related to the corruption involving accused persons who are officials of the Railway Department under the Ministry of Railway, and in order to go to the root of the case, it
requires detailed and thorough investigation.

Considering gravity, seriousness of allegations, facts and circumstances of the case, the instant case is not an exceptional one wherein discretionary power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. can be used. He submitted that applicantaccused persons are not entitled to be released on bail. No ground is
made out to grant bail. He submitted that interrogation of accused is necessary and Investigating Officer is required to question both the accused. Therefore, the learned P.P. objected to release the accused on bail and relied on the following citations:

i) In Gautam Kundu Vs. Enforcement Directorate (CRM No.8345/2019, decided on 28.02.2020), it is observed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that:

“It is evident from the charge-sheet that the petitioner is responsible for the acts and affairs of the company as the Chairman of Rose Valley Group of Company who planned and designed the illegal schemes to mobilize deposits from the innocent investors including deposits under the scheme of
issue of debenture with false assurance of high return and thereby generated huge sums and diverted and thereby laundered the money for different purposes by befooling the common public and has committed offence under Section 3 read with Section 70(1) and (2) of PMLA Act punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Thus, the petitioner is involved in a grave economic crime having serious social ramification and in the larger interest of the society. In my considered view, the learned Trial Judge has rightly turned down his prayer for release under the provision of Section 436-A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure by taking in view the proviso clauses for his continued detention till the conclusion of the trial. Accordingly, in the context of what has been discussed above, the prayer for release of the petitioner Gautam Kundu is refused considering the enormity of the crime and his involvement in many other cases relating to Rose Valley cheat fund scam case.”

ii) In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No.728/2013 (Arising
out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No.9706/2012), decided on 09.05.2013), it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:
BA.No.648/2021
“While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for
believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have
the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”

iii) In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy [Criminal Appeal No.729/2013 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.5946 of 2012), decided on 09.05.2013] it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that :

“’While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for
believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have
the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.’’

iv) In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another [Criminal Appeal No(s). 2086 of 2010, Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No.4590 of 2010, decided on 29.10.2010], it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:

“‘The accused, in the present case, is alleged to have committed a heinous crime of killing an old helpless lady by strangulation. He was seen coming out of the victim’s house by a neighbour around the time of the alleged occurrence, giving rise to a reasonable belief that he had committed the murder.
We feel that under the given circumstances, it was not the stage at which bail under Section 439 of the Code should have been granted to the accused, more so, when even charges have not yet been framed.”

v )In Sudha Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.448/2021 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3577/2020, decided on 23.04.2021], it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that:

“It is needless to point out that in cases of this nature, it is important that courts do not enlarge an accused on bail with a blinkered vision by just taking into account only the parties before them and the incident in question. It is necessary for courts to consider the impact that release of such persons on
bail will have on the witnesses yet to be examined and the innocent members of the family of the victim who might be the next victims.’’

vi) In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Appeal No.730/2013 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No.3404/2013), decided on 09.05.2013], it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:

“While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.”

vii) In Masroor Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.838/2009 (Arising out of Special
Leave Petition (Cri.) No.3672/2008, decided on 27.04.2009], it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:

“It is trite to state that the Court granting bail has to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner with care and caution and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.”

viii) In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh [Cri. Appeal No.114/2000 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.1295/1997) decided on 1.2.2000], it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:

“Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the policy of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV
leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-economic political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.”

ix) In Jainam Rathod Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [CRM-M No.36693 /2019, decided on 13.11.2019], it is held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that:

“Even in case of Nitin Johari (supra) the Supreme Court had emphasized the fact that in case of consideration of bail to the accused in case of economic offences, the factors and criteria mentioned by the Supreme Court in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra) are to be followed. Observation of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, as approvingly quoted in the case of Nitin Johari (supra), are as under:“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posting serious threat to the financial health of the country.”

“35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/state and other similar considerations.”

Therefore this court is under obligation to consider the nature of offence and the material placed on record before the special court, by way of charge-sheet against the petitioner, for consideration of question of granting bail to petitioner.”

8.The accused persons in this case have been alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the Contractor of Central Railway, upon which on 24.07.2021 a trap was laid and they were
caught red-handed while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- and are taken into custody.

Thereafter, they were produced before the learned Holiday Remand Court on 25.07.2021 and have been taken into judicial custody since then. No police custody of accused no.1, who is Station Director at C.S.M.T. Railway Station was claimed. However, accused no.2 who is attendant of accused no.1, was stated to have tested Covid-19 positive. The documents produced by prosecution/C.B.I. are: complaint of the Contractor-Mr. B. Yellaswamy, verification panchanama, F.I.R., pre-trap panchanama and post- trap panchanama. After carrying out all the actions as above, the accused persons were produced before the Court, to whom judicial custody is granted till 06.08.2021.

9.Now in the say filed by C.B.I., bail application is opposed on the ground that the accused may threaten complainant and influence railway officials and other private persons to create obstacles in obtaining voice identification samples. It is further contended that the documents are to be scrutinized which were seized from the residence of the accused and voice sample is to be obtained.

10.The learned P.P. for C.B.I. has relied on the cases of Nimmagadda Prasad, V. Vijay Sai Reddy, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, Sudha Singh, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and Masroor (cited supra), wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court time and again reiterated the principles to be taken into consideration while deciding bail application, and further, in respect of economic offences, it is held that they need to be visited with different approach and viewed seriously, being grave offences affecting economy of the country. Further, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh (cited supra), while dealing with case under Section 13(1) (e) and 17 of P.C. Act where Government servant was possessing assets more than his income, the Hon’ble Apex Court made above observations wherein the disproportionate income was Rs.13,12,252/-, being 350 times more than the known sources, which was gained by corrupt and illegal means and the matter arose out of quashing of proceedings by the Hon’ble M.P. High Court, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which order was set aside and the trial in the case was directed to proceed as per law. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Gautam Kundu (supra) observed as above while dealing with the case for offence under Section 3 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and denied bail under Section 436-A of Cr.P.C., to the petitioner, having been involved in a grave economic crime having serious social ramification.

11.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 337], recently dealt with the matter as to grant of bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., in the case of offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of I.P.C., and Sections 8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P. C. Act, wherein the well settled principles for grant of bail as are
reflected in citations supra relied on by Ld. P.P. have been reiterated at paragraph no.21 and the matter as to economic offence. It is observed as under:

“’There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary
for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that “flight risk” of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and
be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same cannot, in our view, be put in a straight-jacket formula so as to deny bail to the one who is before the Court, due to the conduct of other offenders, if the person under consideration is
otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of his own case. Hence, in our view, such consideration including as to “flight risk” is to be made on individual basis being uninfluenced by the unconnected cases, more so, when the personal liberty is involved. As discussed earlier, insofar as the “flight risk” and “tampering with evidence” are concerned, the High Court held in favour of the appellant by holding that the appellant is not a “flight risk” i.e. “no possibility of his abscondence”. The High Court rightly held that by issuing certain directions like “surrender of passport”, “issuance of look out notice”, “flight risk” can be secured. So far as “tampering with evidence” is concerned, the High Court rightly held that the documents relating to the case are in the custody of the prosecuting agency, Government of India and the Court and there is no chance of the appellant tampering with evidence. In the absence of any contemporaneous materials, no weight could be attached to the allegation that the appellant has been influencing the witnesses by approaching the witnesses. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge “…that it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner will not influence the witnesses directly or indirectly……” is not substantiated by any materials and is only a generalised apprehension and appears to be speculative. Mere averments that the appellant approached the witnesses and the assertion that the appellant would further pressurize the witnesses, without any material basis cannot be the reason to deny regular bail to the appellant; more so, when the appellant has been in custody for nearly two months, co-operated with the investigating agency and the charge sheet is also filed.
The appellant is not a “flight risk” and in view of the conditions imposed, there is no possibility of his abscondence from the trial. Statement of the prosecution that the appellant has influenced the witnesses and there is likelihood of his further influencing the witnesses cannot be the ground to
deny bail to the appellant particularly, when there is no such whisper in the six remand applications filed by the prosecution.”

12.The learned Advocate for the accused submitted that the accused is not at flight risk in this case who is a Central Government Railway Employee. He further submitted that the custody of accused since last 7 days is more than 48 hours, which amounts to his automatic suspension from the job, and being jobless at present, there is no question of his influencing any of the railway officials. Further, he
submitted that the investigation is already complete, so far as trap and recovery of bribe amount is concerned and there is no question of tampering evidence. On the other hand, the learned P.P. submitted that the facts in the case of P. Chidambarm (supra) were different as in the instant case, there are allegations against the accused of demanding bribe frequently from various persons and investigation is going on. He submitted that the custody of accused could not be obtained and it is
necessary to interrogate the accused.

He submitted that there is likelihood of influencing witnesses by the accused.

13.With due respect to the observations in the citations supra and after going through the case at hand, as observed above, the present one is a case under Section 7 of P.C. Act and under Section 120-B of
I.P.C., wherein the accused persons are alleged to have been caught redhanded at Central Railway premises while accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/-, from Railway Contractor providing pay and use toiles
services. After receiving the written complaint from informant, it was verified and F.I.R. was registered and pre-trap panchanama was also drawn. The trap was laid successfully and the accused were caught
red-handed while accepting the bribe of Rs.10,000/- and the panchanama was prepared accordingly.

14.Now the contention of the Investigating Officer in say filed to the application is that the accused may influence the witnesses being in service of railway, as also, the other railway officials and private
persons, while taking voice samples. The Investigating Officer further submitted that the voice sample is also to be obtained from the accused. Accused no.2 only was tested Covid-19 positive after arrest
and accused no.1 was tested negative. However, his custody was not obtained by C.B.I., and it is now contended that the voice sample is to be obtained and that accused may influence the witnesses.

In this regard, a direction may be issued to the accused to co-operate in the investigation and remain present for voice sample in the C.B.I. office and not to influence any of witnesses.

15.It is the further contention of the Investigating Officer in the say that any other information may surface from the documents seized from accused and the accused may threaten the witnesses. Insofar as the present case is concerned, only voice sample is stated to be obtained and with respect to the other offence which may surface, the prosecution has to deal with the same separately as per law. This being a trap case wherein the bribe amount is seized and requisite panchanamas are already drawn, there is nothing to refuse bail to the accused, having viewed the case in light of well settled legal principles enunciated in the citations supra.

16.The learned P.P. for C.B.I lastly relied on the case of Jainam Rathod wherein the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that merely because the accused was not arrested during investigation,
is not a ground in economic offences to get bail as a matter of right. The observations regarding economic offences are made therein to be dealt with differently.

The case therein was under Section 447 of Companies Act in respect of huge fraud. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, as observed earlier, this is a case under Section 7 of P. C. Act read with Section 120-B of I.P.C., in which the trap was successfully laid and bribe amount has been recovered from the accused who are in custody since last 7 days. No police custody of the accused was sought, however, now their voice identification is further sought to be made. Therefore, the present case has to be dealt with accordingly.

17.In view of the above discussion, the accused in this case shall be released on bail subject to conditions, in view of the matter raised by the Investigating Officer in the reply, by issuing directions to the accused to co-operate in the process of investigation, and further with direction not to tamper evidence or influence witnesses in any manner and such other conditions as are necessary to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following order:

Order

1.Bail Application No.648 of 2021 is hereby allowed.

2.Applicant/Accused-Gajanan Sharad Joshi be released on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with surety/sureties in like amount.

3.The accused shall attend the office of C.B.I. between 11.00 am. to 2.00 p.m. from 02.08.2021 to 04.08.2021, and shall further remain present for giving voice samples and/or attend C.B.I. office by cooperating in the investigation, as and when called by Investigating Officer till filing of final report/charge-sheet.

4.The accused shall furnish correct details of his temporary/permanent residential address, office address with landline, mobile phone numbers, and Email-IDs, if any, and the name of person
with all particulars who should be contacted in future when accused remains absent.

He shall also undertake to provide in future any change therein to the C.B.I. and Court.

5.The accused shall not leave India without the permission of the Court.

6.The accused shall not tamper documentary or other evidence in the case in any manner.

7.The accused shall not threaten or influence any of the witness/es in the case by approaching to them or contacting them in any way, mode or manner.

8.The accused shall not commit any offence during the period of his release on bail.

9. Breach of any of the bail conditions will be a ground to cancel the BA.No.648/2021

10.The learned Advocate for the accused submitted that the accused is able to furnish and deposit cash security of Rs.25,000/- and time may be granted to furnish surety. In view of the submission so made, the accused shall be released on temporary cash bail of Rs.25,000/- and time of 4 weeks is granted to furnish surety/sureties. Superintendent of Sessions Department to accept the cash security A.T.H.

Date : 30.07.2021 (V. C. BARDE) C.B.I. Special Judge City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay.

Dictated on : 30.07.2021 Typed on : 30.07.2021 and 31.07.2021 Signed by HHJ : 31.07.2021 BA.No.648/2021 : 19 : Remand Appl.No.778/2021 “ CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.” 02.08.2021/ 4.26 p.m. UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. Pradnya S. Naik NAME OF STENOGRAPHER (S.G.) Name of the Judge (with Court Shri. V.C. BARDE Room No.)
(CR.No.50) Date of Pronouncement JUDGEMENT/ORDER of 30.07.2021 JUDGEMENT/ORDER signed by 31.07.2021 P.O. on JUDGEMENT/ORDER on uploaded 02.08.2021