1
.IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR
GR.BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.70 OF 2017
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2017
IN
ACB, GMU MUMBAI CR NO.02/2017
Mr.Mahendrapratap Kashinath Yadav
Indian Inhabitant, Hindu, aged 54 years,
Occ: Service, residing at A/33, Dreamland
Society, Babrekar Nagar, Near Ayyappa Temple,
Charkop, Kandivali(West), Mumbaiн400 101…Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B.Worli,
C.R.No.02/2017, Mumbai)
..Respondent
Ld. advocate Mr.Chetan Bane for the applicant
Ld. APP Mr.Lade for the State.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI S.V.RANPISE(CR NO.17)
DATE: 31/01/2017
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.02 of 2017
filed in Remand Application No.111 of 2017 registered with A.C.B.
Mumbai for the offences punishable u/s. 7,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
2
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered against this
applicant on the basis of complaint filed by one Vora.
2.

Applicant has filed this application on the
ground that he was arrested in connection with the said offences
on 27/01/2017 and since then he is in custody.

Now he is in
judicial custody and therefore he has filed this application on the
following grounds:н
GROUNDS
That now custodial interrogation is over, he has
coнoperated the investigating machinery during
the course of his police custody, there is no iota
of evidence against him, false case is filed against
him, 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 has no criminal antecedents etc.,.
3.

State has filed say and raised objection on the
grounds that investigation is at preliminary stage and applicant was
arrested while accepting amount of Rs.50,000/н.
4.

Following points arise for my determination.
POINTS
1.

Is applicant entitled for bail as sought for?

2.

What order?

3
5.

My findings thereon with reasons thereto are as
follows:н
FINDINGS
1.

In the affirmative.

2.

As per final order.

REASONS
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate Mr.Bane for the applicant
and Ld. APP Mr.Lade for the State. Also heard investigating officer
Mr.Ghuge.
Point No.1
7.

From the submissions it is gathered that though
State has raised strong objection, but, in oral submission both Ld.
A.P.P. Mr.Lade and investigating officer have submitted for
conditions.

Moreover, the custodial interrogation is over. The
alleged amount seems to have been recovered. Considering the
said facts and circumstances and when the allegations are seriously
challenged by the applicant and applicant is permanent resident of
Mumbai and he is a public servant, 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
4
(Rs.twenty thousand only) with one or
more solvent surety/ 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 Wednesday and Friday in between
11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till filing of the
chargeнsheet.

31/01/2017.

S.V.RANPISE
SPECIAL JUDGE,
UNDER P.C.ACT
MUMBAI.

5
Ex.2
Application filed by adv. Mr.Bane for cash
Security.
Court passed order below Ex.2:н
ORDER
Perused the application and say filed by A.P.P.
Heard Adv.Mr.Bane.
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.

31/01/2017.

S.V.RANPISE
SPECIAL JUDGE.

6