1
BA 518/19
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
FOR GR. MUMBAI, AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 518 OF 2019
IN
A.C.B. R. A. 651 OF 2019
Priti Rajaram Jagtap
… Applicant/Orig.
Accused.

V/s
The State of Maharashtra
(Through A.C.B. Mumbai C.R. No. 22/19)
… Respondent/
Complainant.

Appearances: Ld. Advocate Mr. Bandge for the applicant/Accused.
Ld. APP Mr. Soshte for the State.
Coram :
Date :
A.N. KARMARKAR,
Special Judge (Court Room No.54)
25th June, 2019
ORDER
1.

This is an application under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C., for
releasing the applicant/accused on bail.
2.

According
to
the
applicant,
she
was
arrested
on
22.06.2019, for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Now, the applicant is remanded to judicial custody.
The applicant has filed the application on the ground that the
investigation is over. It is also contended that, the complainant
approached the ACB at the instance of Advocate and has been used for
the purpose of settling professional rivalry of the applicant/accused.
The applicant is working as Assistant Public Prosecutor in the
Magistrate’s Court. The alleged amount of bribe is recovered. House of
the applicant is also searched. Further custody of the applicant is not
2
required.

BA 518/19
The applicant is from middle class family.

She is also
suffering from brain tumor and other ailments. She is a resident of
Mumbai. There is no antecedents to her discredit.
3.

The prosecution has filed say vide Exh. 2 and objected the
applicant. The allegations in the complaint is verified and the trap was
laid as the applicant has demanded bribe. Tainted amount is recovered
from the applicant. The application is objected on the ground that voice
sample is to be taken and statement of witnesses are to be recorded.
4.

I have heard both the sides. Perused record.

5.

The Ld. Advocate for the applicant has contended that the
tainted amount is recovered and the applicant is falsely implicated due
to the professional rivalry. He has submitted that so far as objections
are concerned, condition of attendance can be imposed.

Therefore,
application be rejected.
6.

The Ld. APP has submitted that the applicant was caught
raid handed while accepting bribe. Secondly, the witnesses are still to
be examined.
7.

It appears that, the applicant is remanded to judicial
custody on 23.06.2019. It is alleged that the applicant has demanded
bribe of Rs. 50,000/­ for giving her reply on behalf of prosecution for
the compromise/settlement in one of the criminal matter. It appears
that the tainted amount is recovered. Panchanamas are drawn. Further
detention of the applicant may not be necessary. It appears from the
3
BA 518/19
application that the house of the applicant is also searched. According
to the prosecution, voice sample is still to be taken. Care can be taken
by imposing certain conditions in this regard.

The applicant is a
Government servant. She is a resident of Bandra, Mumbai. There is no
possibility of her abscondence. Punishment for the offence punishable
under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is imprisonment upto
seven years.

So far as the other objections are concerned, certain
conditions can be imposed.

For the reasons stated above, the
application deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass
order in following terms.
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No. 518 of 2019 in NDPS Remand Application
No. 651 of 2019 is allowed and disposed off.
2.

The applicant/accused­Priti Rajaram Jagtap, be released on bail
on her executing PR Bond of Rs. 25,000/­ with one or more sureties in
the like amount.
3.

She shall not pressurize the witness and shall not tamper the
prosecution evidence.
4.

She shall attend the office of I.O. on every Sunday in between
11.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. for the period of three months or till filing of
the charge­sheet whichever is earlier and shall help the I.O. in
investigation.

Date: 25.06.2019
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Date of sign
( A.N. Karmarkar )
Spl. Judge,
under the P.C. Act,
Gr.Mumbai.
: 25.06.2019
: 26.06.2019
: 26.06.2019
4
BA 518/19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE & TIME
:
26.06.2019
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
:
S.S.BATHE
2.50 P.M.

Name of Judge (with Court Room No.)

Shri A.N. Karmarkar
(C.R.No. 54)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT /ORDER
25.06.2019
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 26.06.2019
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on
26.06.2019