1
BA 120/17
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) FOR GR.BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION No.120 OF 2017
IN
Remand Application No.186/2017
(Arising out of RC BA 1/2017/A 00011нCBI ACB, Mumbai)
Mr Motilal Bharati
Age : 57 years, of Mumbai
Adult, Indian inhabitant,
Gainfully employed as Sr. DEN Land
Manager, O/o. Sr. DEN (Coнordination)
Central Railway, CSTM, and presently
at CBI custody)
Union of India
(Through PI CBI, ACB, Mumbai)
Е Applicant/accused
V/s
… Respondent/
Prosecution
Shri Priyatosh Tiwari, Learned advocate for applicant/Accused
Shri Omprakash Chauhan, Ld. Spl.PP for respondent/prosecution
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
SHRI. R. N. JOSHI (COURT ROOM No.53)
DATED : 27.02.2017
ORDER
.

By the present application, applicant prayed for releasing
him on bail for the offences punishable under Section 120нB of the
I.P.C. r/w. Section 7 of the PC Act, contending that, he was arrested on
23.02.2017, produced on 24.02.2017 and remanded to C.B.I. custody to
27.02.2017, which ended today and he is taken in judicial custody till
14.03.2017. Applicant was arrested in view of the report lodged by the
informant Shri Nikhil Doiphode that, on behalf of architect Shri Brijesh
Patel, he visited office of applicant 2н3 times for the purpose of N.O.C.,
for land bearing survey No.23/0 at Mauje, Bandhivali, Tal. Karjat, Dist.

2
BA 120/17
Raigad, where an amount of Rs.40,000/н was demanded by applicant,
for him and Rs.10,000/н each, for two of his associates. Thus, it was a
composite demand.
2]
After verification of demand, on 22.02.2017 a trap was laid
on 23.02.2017 as during verification, it was confirmed that, the
applicant/accused demanded Rs.20,000/н as a part payment of
Rs.40,000/н and Rs.1,000/н to Rs.2,000/н for the two other persons.
During the trap, on 23.02.2017 applicant was arrested having
demanded and accepted the tainted currency notes to the tune of
Rs.20,000/н from the informant. Already he had been in custody since
arrest on 23.02.2017, till today i.e. 27.02.2017.
3]
It is contended that, applicant is having explanation for
each and every penny in respect of F.D. receipts to the tune of Rs.1.2
Crores and gold of 950 Gms. found in his house along with the various
bank accounts.

However, that is the matter of investigation, for
disproportionate assets.

Applicant is not required in custody in the
present crime, in which, almost investigation is completed. Applicant is
not in a position to tamper with the evidence.

Applicant is having
permanent base and is residing on the address mentioned in the title.
However, it is seen that, no address is mentioned in application.
Applicant being a public servant, the question that, he will not be
available for trial does not arise. He is ready to abide by the terms and
conditions, if any imposed.
4]
Application is opposed by filing say by I.O. Shri Soni on the
ground that, the investigation is at an initial stage. During search, F.Ds.
of worth Rs.1.2 Crores approximately along with bank accounts, post
office accounts and huge gold jewellery approximately 950 Gms. is
3
BA 120/17
unearthed, during his house search. If, applicant is released, he may,
influence the witnesses, or may abscond.

So, prayed to reject the
application.
5]
Heard ld. Advocate Shri Priyatosh Tiwari for applicant and
Shri Omprakash Chauhan for CBI.
6]
Perused the application, say filed, case diary in view of the
submissions advanced.
7]
The main contention opposing the application is that, the
investigation is in preliminary stage and, if applicant is released he
would influence the witnesses. On the other hand, the submissions on
behalf of applicant are as mentioned in the application.
8]
Prima facie there is material against applicant to have being
involved in a very serious offence. Applicant is a person, who can allow
or reject an N.O.C. in respect of construction, touching the railway
premises, which in itself, is a very responsible act.

In such a case,
applicant is arrested redнhanded, while having demanded and
immediate upon acceptance of bribe amount. In such a scenario, when,
house search of applicant was taken, he was found in possession of
F.Ds. of worth Rs.1.2 Crores, gold jewellery 950 Gms. and various bank
accounts and post office accounts, again hinting strongly against
applicant. Being a case of composite demand, as the investigation is in
a very initial stage, if applicant is released, at this stage, it may, affect
the prosecutionТs investigation, cannot be ruled out altogether.
However, even being a serious case, if further custody of applicant is
not required for the crime, in which he is arrested, such a person cannot
be kept in custody, for investigation of another case, which may be
revealed against him. In this view of the matter, prime question is
whether further custody of applicant in this case is necessary ?

4
9]
BA 120/17
To answer the above question, if the record is seen, already
verification, pre and post trap proceedings are completed. The bribe
amount demanded and accepted is recovered. Applicant was in the
custody of CBI since his arrest i.e. from 23.02.2017 till today on
27.02.2017.

In this view of the matter, the apprehension of the State
can be taken care of, by imposing stringent conditions including
condition to attend C.B.I.A.C.B. Office, daily with restraint to enter his
own office and to contact with any of the witnesses, or even his
colleagues in the office, except in physical presence of the investigating
officer, which will meet the ends of justice. As regards the recovery of
the F.Ds., gold ornaments and accounts is concerned, it may be matter
of investigation, in D.A. case, if at all filed for which, if prosecution
finds necessary, may arrest applicant, if the situation so demands, for
that offence. But, for the above purpose he cannot be continued in
detention in this case.

Considering serious nature of allegations, I
proceed to pass the following order :н
ORDER
1]
Bail Application is allowed on the following terms :н
(a)
Applicant/accused shall be released upon his executing P.R.

Bond
of Rs.1,00,000/н with one or two solvent surety/s in
aggregate amount,
(b)
Applicant/accused, shall, attend C.B.I.A.C.B. Office on each
and every day between 10:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m., till further
orders,
(c)
Applicant/accused shall not enter his office till further
order, except in physical presence of investigating officer,
5
(d)
BA 120/17
Applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of this Court,
(e)
Applicant/accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of Gr.

Bombay, till the investigation is completed,
(f)
Applicant/accused shall not contact any witness or
influence the witnesses in any mode or manner whatsoever to
dissuade them to reveal the facts before the investigating officer
or the Court, nor shall, tamper with the evidence directly or
indirectly,
(g)
Applicant/accused shall not contact with his colleagues in
the present office, who may be witnesses in this case, except in
physical presence of the investigating officer till further orders.
This condition shall be in addition to the previous condition.
(h)
Applicant/accused shall produce proof of his present,
native and permanent addresses and contact number of two
persons, who can be contacted by the investigating officer, if and
when so required, to know his whereabouts, who shall be kept
informed by him,
(i)
Applicant/accused shall not change his addresses without
prior information to this Court.
2]
In above terms application is allowed and disposed of.

Date : 27.02.2017
Dictated on
: 27.02.2017
Transcribed on
: 28.02.2017
Corrected &
Signed by HHJ on : 28.02.2017
( R. N. Joshi )
Special Judge for C.B.I.,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Court Room No.53, Gr. Mumbai.

6
BA 120/17
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDERФ
28.02.2017 at 11:20 a.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
V. V. Kulkarni
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of Judge (with Court Room No.)

: HHJ Shri R. N. Joshi
Court Room No.53
Date of Pronouncement of Order
: 27.02.2017
Order signed by P.O. on
: 28.02.2017
Order uploaded on
: 28.02.2017