1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,CBI FOR GR.BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
Bail Application No. 306 of 2018
In
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 442 OF 2018
Pradeep Basant Lal Vishwakarma
Age: 28 years, Occ: Service
Residing at: B­2/204, The address
LBS Marg, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai
At present lodged in Arthur Road Jail
Applicant accused No.4
Versus
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
Respondent/Prosecution
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mrs. Reshma Mutha for applicant accused No.4
Ld.SPP Shri Sandeep Singh for C.B.I.
CORAM : H.H. SPECIAL JUDGE SHRI M. G. DESHPANDE
CBI SPECIAL COURT (C.R.No.52)
DATE : May 2, 2018
1.

By this application accused No.4 Pradeep Basant Lal Vishwakarma
has prayed to release him on bail. CBI vide their reply Exh.2 strongly
opposed and contended to reject the application. Heard Ld. Adv. Mrs.
Reshma Mutha for accused No.4 and Learned SPP Shri Sandeep Singh for
CBI. Following points arise for my determination. I am recording following
2
findings thereon for the reasons discussed below:­
POINTS
1.

Whether
accused
No.4
Pradeep
Vishwakarma deserves to be released on
bail?

2.

What Order?

FINDINGS
Yes
As
per
order
final
:: R E A S O N S ::
POINT NO.1 :­
FACTS:­
2.

CBI ACB, Mumbai received information from reliable sources that
accused Aashish Aggarwal would deliver the demanded illegal gratification
of Rs. 1,20,000/­ in three packets of Rs.70,000/­, Rs. 30,000/­ and Rs.
20,000/­ to accused No.1 Shyamalendu Kumar Das, co­accused Mrs.
Jagruti Gupta and other officers of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central) on 20.4.2018 at 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. in their office at Shram Raksha
Bhawan, Shivshrushti Road, Sion(East), Mumbai in lieu of issuance of
Labour Contract License to M/s. Som Projects Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, on
20.4.2018 accused No.1 Shyamalendu Kumar Das and co­accused Mrs.
Jagruti Gupta, Labour Enforcement Officer accepted envelopes containing
bribe amount Rs.70,000/­, Rs. 20,000/­ and Rs. 30,000/­ respectively.
Thereafter, accused No.3 Aashish Aggarwal and applicant accused No.4
Shri Pradeep Vishwakarma collected labour license and certificate from
3
office of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. Three white envelopes
containing bribe amount of Rs.70,000/­, Rs. 20,000/­ and Rs. 30,000/­
were recovered from the possession of accused No.1 Shyamalendu Kumar
Das and co­accused Mrs. Jagruti Gupta.

In this way, the trap was
successful. Searches u/s. 165 Cr.P.C. were conducted at the residential and
office premises of public servants i.e. accused No.1 and 2. Incriminating
documents were seized from them. These are the facts.
GROUNDS:­
(i)
Applicant has falsely got implicated in this case.

(ii)
The applicant is employee of Som Projects Ltd.. He is in
no way concerned with the looking after of the said
company.

(iii)
Applicant is not public servant, hence provisions of P.C.
Act are not applicable.

(iv)
Nothing incriminating has been found at the behest of the
applicant during search and seizure carried out at the
office of Som Projects Ltd.

(v)
The applicant has a good case for being acquitted.

(vii)
The applicant is ready and willing to co­operate with the
investigating agency.

(viii)
He will abide all the terms and conditions.
These are the grounds for bail.

Main points on which CBI resisted application are as follows:
(a)
Trap was successful and accused No. 1 and 2
Shyamalendu Das and Mrs. Jagruti Gupta accepted the
envelopes containing bribe amount when trapped.

4
Thereafter accused No.3 Aashish Aggarwal and applicant
accused No.4 Pradeep Vishwakarma collected labour
license and certificate from the office of the Deputy Chief
Labour Commissioner.
(b)
The investigation is at initial stage and incriminating
documents recovered from the search of the house of the
public servants indicate their involvement in corrupt
practices and obtaining illegal gratification from various
contractors.

(c)
There is sufficient documentary and circumstantial
evidence to prove the involvement of the applicant.

(d)
Applicant is not permanent resident of Mumbai, hence
there is every possibility of his absconding.

(e)
Investigation is at a very crucial stage and applicant is
very influential. Hence, possibility to influence the
witnesses and tampering evidence is there.

(f)
CBI, ACB received the intercepted recorded calls of the
accused and analysis thereof is going on. There is every
likelihood of involvement of subordinate officials.

(g)
Offence is serious hence, strong message needs to be
conveyed to the society. CBI would complete
investigation within prescribed time.

These are the grounds on which CBI resisted the application
and contended to reject the same.

3.

I carefully examined all the grounds in the application and say.

Admittedly, there was successful trap on 20.4.2018. Alleged white
envelopes/packets containing bribe amount were recovered during the
trap. It is also an admitted fact that search of the houses of accused No.1
Shyamalendu Kumar Das and accused No.2 Mrs. Jagruti Gupta was taken
and relevant documents were seized. This fact is evident from Paragraph
5
­7 of the Remand Application which indicates that all the necessary
documents were seized and scrutiny thereof was only remained. This was
the situation on the first day of the Remand i.e. 21.4.2018. Even exchange
of conversation on mobile was also recorded and available with
Investigating Officer. All these grounds nowhere indicate necessity of
keeping the accused behind the bars.
4.

It is the contention of CBI that applicant is not resident of Mumbai
and therefore, likely to abscond. The applicant is a private person,
employee of Som Projects Pvt. Ltd.

If certain conditions are imposed on
him, his presence can be secured and apprehension expressed by CBI can
be safeguarded. Say and Remand Application of CBI further indicate that
everything was seized from the house of the main accused. Since
21.4.2018 the applicant is in judicial custody. Even all other grounds put
forth by CBI to resist the application clearly indicate that investigation is
almost over. There is no certainty or likelihood of beginning the trial in
coming days. No antecedents of the applicant are pointed out. The role of
this applicant accused prima­facie relates to offence u/s. 12 of The
Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s. 120­B of I.P.C. Offence u/s. 7 of The
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 provides punishment which may extend
to seven years, offence u/s. 12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act
provides punishment which may extend to seven years and not less than 3
years and offence u/s. 120­B I.P.C. provides punishment in the same
manner. It is the contention of CBI that he is likely to influence the
witnesses. If certain conditions are imposed on the applicant such
apprehensions of CBI would be safeguarded. In the result, Point No.1 is
6
answered in the affirmative and following order is passed:­
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.306 of 2018 is allowed.

2.

Applicant accused No.4 Pradeep Vishwakarma be
released on bail by his furnishing P. R. Bond of
Rs.30,000/­ and surety bond of like amount i.e Solvency
Certificate or two sureties each of Rs.15,000/­.

3.

As requested by Ld. Adv. for applicant accused No.4, he is
permitted to deposit Rs. 30,000/­ being cash security
alongwith P.R. Bond and Surety Bond of like amount for
Three Weeks till he furnishes the sureties.

4.

Applicant accused No.4 Pradeep Vishwakarma shall
furnish the CBI and Court correct details of his
temporary, permanent residential address, office address
with landline, mobile phone nos. and email ids and shall
undertake to provide in future any change therein to the
CBI and Court.

5.

Applicant accused No.4 Pradeep Vishwakarma shall also
furnish the name of the authorized person with all his
particulars, details (Address, Mobile, Landline Numbers,
e­mail ids ) to whom the CBI and Court should contact in
case, the accused remains absent.

6.

Applicant accused No.4 Pradeep Vishwakarma shall
undertake to attend Investigating Officer/CBI, ACB,
Mumbai once in a week at any time between 8.00 a.m. to
8.00 p.m. on every Friday till further order. CBI shall
maintain its record and report immediately to the Court
any non compliance thereof.

7.

Applicant accused No.4 Pradeep Vishwakarma shall
deposit his passport with CBI.

7
8.

Applicant accused No.4 Pradeep Vishwakarma shall not
leave India without permission of the Court and
scrupulously attend each and every date of the Court.

9
Breach of any of the above conditions will be a ground to
cancel the bail.

(M. G. Deshpande)
Special Judge (C.B.I.),
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

Date: 2.5.2018
Dictated on
:
Transcribed on
:
Draft submitted on:
Final submitted on:
Signed by HHJ on :
2.5.2018
2.5.2018
2.5.2018
2.5.2018
2.5.2018
Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed order
5.5.2018 (5.50 p.m.)
DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.)

B.S.Parab
HHJ Shri M.G.Deshpande
C.R.No.52
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
2.5.2018
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
2.5.2018
Judgment/Order uploaded on
5.5.2018
8