:1:
BA 296-18RA437/18
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(APPOINTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT)
FOR GR. MUMBAI, AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION No. 296 OF 2018
In
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 437 OF 2018
Pramod Dinkar Bhosale
… Applicant/accused
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra (at the instance
of Anti Corruption Bureau Mumbai
C.R.No. 15/18)
Appearance
Coram :
Date :
… Complainant/Respdt.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Jambulikar for the applicant/accused
Ld. APP Mr. Gonsalves for the State/Respondent.
D.K. Gudadhe, Special Judge (C.R.No.46)
20th April, 2018
Order
1.
This is an application filed by the applicant/accused to
release him on bail.
2.
It is the contention of the accused that, the officers of Anti
Corruption Bureau, Mumbai Unit on 19.4.2018 arrested him on
allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe. However, he is innocent.
In addition to this, investigation is almost complete and nothing is
require to be completed. He is having permanent resident in Mumbai
and there is no likelihood of his absconding. Therefore, he may be
granted bail.
3.
Prosecution strongly opposed the application on a ground
that accused may jump over the bail or tramper the prosecution
:2:
BA 296-18RA437/18
evidence. Therefore, bail application be rejected.
4.
On perusal of the remand papers, it is seen that some
investigation in respect of the property which found in possession of the
accused is require to be completed. But, while rejecting further police
custody, it is held that for making investigation on said line specific
procedure has been prescribed in the Manual of ACB only and for that
purpose custody is not required. So, it is seen that, investigation is
almost complete.
5.
However, the prosecution opposed the bail application on a
ground that the accused may jump over the bail and tamper the
prosecution evidence. So far as jumping of bail is concerned, it is seen
that accused is permanent resident of Mumbai and he is in service of
Mumbai Municipal Corporation.
So, there is less likelihood of his
absconding.
6.
So far as tampering the evidence is concerned, as seen
earlier, the investigation on the point of demand and acceptance of
bribe is almost complete. Furthermore, the prosecution witnesses must
have been Government Servant and there is less likelihood of doing
influence by the accused.
Therefore, I find less substance in this
objection of the prosecution.
7.
At this stage, it will not be out of place to mention here the
Ld. APP at the end of his say made reference that the defence had
undertaken to serve the copy, but it was severed at 3.45 p.m. today.
But I failed to understand what exactly he wants to convey from this
say. Generally in such say is mentioned that they want sometime to file
:3:
BA 296-18RA437/18
reply, but the Ld.APP has not sought time.
Therefore, I failed to
understand what exactly he wants to say from such say. Let it as it may.
8.
However, from the discussion made above, it is seen that
there is less chance of accused fleeing away from justice or any way
tampering the prosecution case. Still, if the prosecution has any fear to
this effect suitable condition to that effect can very well be imposed.
Thus, in my view, accused can very well be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass order in following terms:
Order
1. Accused be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond of
Rs.25,000/, (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only), with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
2. Accused to attend Anti Corruption Bureau Mumbai, on everyday till
7 days from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., and Cooperate the Investigating
officer for further investigation, if any.
3. He is directed not to win over the witness or prosecution evidence in
any manner whatsoever.
4. He is also directed to attend Anti Corruption Bureau Mumbai, as and
when called by the Investigating Officer in respect of the crime in
question.
5
Bail application No. 296/18 is disposed of accordingly.
(D.K. Gudadhe)
Date 21.04.2018
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 21.04.2018
: 25.04.2018
: 25.04.2018
Special Judge under
P.C. Act, Gr..Mumbai.
:4:
BA 296-18RA437/18
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE & TIME
:
25.04.2018
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
S.S.BATHE
3.20 P.M.
Name of Judge (with Court Room No.)
Shri D.K. Gudadhe
(C.R.No.46)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT /ORDER
21.04.2018
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 25.04.2018
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on
25.04.2018