..1.. B.A. No.759/2024 in ACB R.A.No.1081/2024
CNR NO.MHCC02-014486-2024
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.759 OF 2024
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO.1081 OF 2024
IN
C.R.NO. 28 OF 2024
Mr. Mangesh Namdev Rakshe
Aged: 42 years, Occupation: Service,
Residing at: Pant Nagar Railway Police Vasahat,
Room No.1/15, Ghatkopar (East),
Mumbai – 400 075.
At present lodged and detained at Mumbai
Central Prison, Arthur Road, Mumbai.

…Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(Through ACB, Worli Unit, Mumbai)
…Respondent
Appearances :
Learned APP Mr. Lade for state.
Advocate Mr. Taraq Sayyad for applicant.
CORAM:
DATED:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT
S.B. JOSHI
(C.R. No.46).
30th SEPTEMBER, 2024.

..2… B.A. No.759/2024 in ACB R.A.No.1081/2024
:ORDER:
The present application is moved by applicant/accused
Mangesh Namdev Rakshe for releasing him on bail under Section 483 of
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in C.R. No.28/2024 registered
with ACB, Mumbai under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC” Act for short).
2.

According to prosecution story, the applicant has made
demand of Rs.7,000/- towards bribe for getting release the vehicle
license and for not initiating criminal action for the accident took place
with the vehicle. According to prosecution, the applicant has tried to
receive the bribe amount of Rs.7,000/-. Thus, the crime in question
came to be registered for the commission of offence under Section 7 of
P.C. Act.
3.

The applicant/accused denied prosecution story and
submitted for granting him bail on ground that all the allegations made
in the FIR against him are false one. He has been falsely implicated in
the present crime out of bad test. According to him, he was riding his
bike and the car of the complainant was parked at the middle of the
road without any parking light and thus, his vehicle colluded with the
car of the complainant then complainant agreed to compensate him for
the damages caused to his bike. Thus, there is no connection with the
allegations so as to trying to accept the bribe. There was no demand of
bribe as well as its acceptance. Nothing being part of alleged bribe has
been recovered from him during his custody. Thus, there is no sufficient
material to show his involvement in the crime in question. But under
the grab of settlement for the accident with the vehicles involved in the
..3.. B.A. No.759/2024 in ACB R.A.No.1081/2024
accident with ill motive complainant approached before the Anti
Corruption Bureau, Mumbai and gave colour as to demand of alleged
bribe. Thus, according to applicant, now nothing remained to be
investigated and for that he cannot be kept behind the bar. He is ready
to co-operate with the investigation. According to him, in view of ‘Bail is
a rule and jail is an exception’ he is entitled for his release on bail. He
further added that he has not moved any similar application before any
Court for grant of bail. Due to road traffic accident he is suffering from
head injury and for that he requires CT scan of brain and according to
him, brain injuries are like subdural hematoma/hematoma which can
lead to lucid intervals, in which patients may seem fine at first, but then
deteriorate after some time. According to him, he had moved one
application for grant of bail which came to be rejected on 18.09.2024.
Thus, on these grounds he prayed for releasing him on bail and
permitting him to furnish cash bail in lieu of surety.
4.

The prosecution and Investigating Officer both by filing
joint say Exh.2 submitted for rejection of the application on the ground
that the investigation is still going on. During investigation, it had
transpired that complainant has made payment of Rs.3,000/- by way of
Google pay on the QR Code of Sarfarj Khan as stated by the
applicant/accused. So the bank accounts of said private person are yet
to be investigated. Likewise, the technical investigation with regard to
mobile phone as well as location are yet to be carried out. If the
applicant released on bail then possibility of tampering with the
material documents as well as documentary evidence cannot be ruled
out. Likewise, he will tamper with the investigation. Thus, it is
submitted that the application be rejected.

..4… B.A. No.759/2024 in ACB R.A.No.1081/2024
5.

Heard both the learned counsels. In the light of facts and
submissions on record following points arise for the determination of
the Court and finding thereon are given for the reason stated therein:
NOs.
1.

POINTS
FINDINGS
Whether the successive bail application ….In the negative.
filed
by
applicant
Mangesh
Namdev
Rakshe for releasing him on bail under
Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be allowed ?
2.

What order ?

…As per final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS.1 & 2:
6.

It is submission by the learned counsel for the applicant
that since grant of judicial custody the applicant is in jail. So far as
merits of the case/allegations are concerned, there is nothing against
the applicant. The applicant has not accepted alleged bribe amount as it
is paid to the third person and not to the applicant. So far as the alleged
grounds for rejecting this application as submitted in the say of the
prosecution, those are not genuine one to consider keeping in mind that
most of those grounds are common defence by the prosecution.
Secondly, the applicant is suffering from head injuries for which he
requires to attend the hospital as he has to undergo CT brain. The Ld.
counsel further added that even if this applicant has moved bail
application earlier and it came to be rejected but the ground to oppose
the earlier application and to this application are one of the same. So
according to Ld. counsel as submitted in the application coupled with
medical documents, present application be allowed.

..5.. B.A. No.759/2024 in ACB R.A.No.1081/2024
7.

In rebuttal, the Ld. APP submitted on the same footing like
the say filed to this application. He further added that while rejecting
earlier bail application, the Court has observed that there will be
tampering with the investigation and witnesses at the hands of
applicant and therefore, present application be rejected.
8.

In these backgrounds and after going through the
observation in the bail order passed in Bail Application Exh.4 previously
moved by the applicant it is clear that said application came to be
rejected by my learned predecessor on ground that the amount of
settlement of Rs.10,000/- was demanded and the applicant also taken
out license of the complainant and gave threatening by saying he is a
police constable. He directed informant to pay him Rs.3,000/- from Tea
Stall by using Google pay and collected by him from the owner of the
said Tea Stall. It is further observed that he has played active role in
committing alleged offence. Secondly, the applicant has misused his
post by demanding bribe for not taking action against the complainant.
It is further observed by the earlier Court that investigation is in
progress. The applicant will tamper the prosecution witnesses as well as
investigation. So there being material, Court has further observed that
applicant will cause prejudice to the witnesses and investigation. Thus,
on these grounds the first bail application came to be rejected.
9.

Now this is successive application for same relief. It is
undisputed that the applicant came to be arrested on 13.09.2024. He
was remanded to judicial custody on 14.09.2024. Then first application
for grant of bail came to be rejected on 18.09.2024 on the ground as
stated earlier above. The perusal of this successive application shows
..6… B.A. No.759/2024 in ACB R.A.No.1081/2024
nothing to see any change in circumstance after rejection of earlier
application for bail. Admittedly, as stated in the say by the prosecution
and Investigation Officer investigation is still going on. Earlier bail
application came to be rejected just before 12 days. Only additional
ground to initiate this successive application within a period of 10 days
on rejection of earlier application is that applicant is suffering from
head injury for which he requires CT brain urgently otherwise there is
possibility of suffering from subdural hematoma/epidural hematoma.
But this ground though coupled with medical prescription, but it cannot
be said as a change in circumstance to consider this successive
application. If the application came to be allowed then definitely
investigation which is in progress will tamper and possibility of putting
pressure on the witnesses cannot be ruled out at the hands of applicant.
Since the investigation is not completed, the position will be cleared on
filing of the charge-sheet. As such, no change in circumstance and also
no reasonable and justifiable ground made out to consider this
successive application for grant of bail.
10.

Hence, submission made by the Ld. counsel finds not
acceptable. Having regard to the circumstance before this Court and
being no change in circumstance, the applicant is not entitled for his
release. As such, Court has no alternative except to answer the point
No.1 in the negative.
11.

In view of above said reasoning and finding on point No.1
as above, the application must fail. However, considering the alleged
illness/injury which is stated to be caused to the applicant, it would be
just and reasonable to give direction to the Jailor concerned to provide
..7.. B.A. No.759/2024 in ACB R.A.No.1081/2024
required medical aid urgently to the applicant as per the provisions of
jail manual and rules. Hence, point No.2 is answered as per the
following order:
ORDER
1.

The successive ACB Bail Application No.759 of 2024 in ACB
Remand Application No.1081 of 2024 filed by applicant/accused
Mangesh Namdev Rakshe in Crime No.28/2024 stands rejected.

2.

Further, the superintendent of Jail concerned is directed to
provide required necessary medical aid urgently to the applicant
as and when required as per provisions of jail manual and rules
and intimate the Court its compliance.

3.

The successive ACB Bail Application No.759 of 2024 in Remand
Application No.1081 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

SANJAY
BHALCHANDRARAO
JOSHI
Digitally signed by
SANJAY
BHALCHANDRARAO
JOSHI
Date: 2024.09.30
17:04:36 +0530
(S.B. JOSHI)
Date:-30/09/2024
Special Judge, under P.C. Act
City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay
at Mumbai.
Dictated on
: 30/09/2024
Transcribed on
: 30/09/2024
Signed on
: 30/09/2024
..8… B.A. No.759/2024 in ACB R.A.No.1081/2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
30/09/2024 at 04:56 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.

H.H.J. Shri. S.B. Joshi
(Court Room No.46)
)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 30/09/2024
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
30/09/2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on
30/09/2024