1
BA 10/15
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2015
IN
SPECIAL CASE NO.60 OF 2001
(RC No.37(A) of 1998 (RA No.13 of 2015))
Rajeev Kamath @ Rajiv Kamath,
Samsung Hostel, Ganesh Wadi,
BMC Road, Deccan Gymkhana,
Pune.

… Applicant
V/s.
CBI (ACB)
..Respondents
Mr. Mookhtiar, Ld. Adv. for the applicant/ accused.
Mr. Omprakash, Ld. SPP for the CBI.
Coram:HH The Special Judge for CBI/The Addl.Sessions Judge
Shri. H.S.Mahajan (CR No.51).
Date : 15.07.2015.
ORDER
1.

This is an application filed by original accused no.19 in CBI Spl.

Case No.60/2001. The applicant/ accused stands charged in the said
matter having committed offences punishable u/s. 420, 201,409,468,469,
471,477 r/w. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, during pendency of trial, the
accused/ applicant remained absent and was absconding. Trial, therefore,
proceeded in absence of the present applicant and finally concluded by
way of judgment on 14.7.2014.

Thereafter, the applicant came to be
arrested.
2.

According to the applicant, he could not remain present during
2
BA 10/15
the trial as he was suffering from Schizophrenia and bipolar mood
disorder. In fact he was admitted in the hospital since 2007 from time to
time and availed treatment in Chaitanya Mental Health Care, Kondwa,
Pune.

According to him, till November 2014, his treatment was
continued. In the result, it is his case that, he could not remain present
during trial on account of bonafide circumstances. It is his case that, in
light of aforesaid position, he needs to be enlarged on bail.
3.

Opponent CBI has filed detailed say and objected the
application.

According to opponent CBI, presence of the applicant/
accused required to be secured by issuing proclamation as well as NBW.
According to it, if the applicant/ accused enlarged on bail, then there are
chances of his fleeing away from justice. In the result, opponent CBI has
objected the application.
4.

Argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for the applicant is in the
aforesaid line. Apart from that, he has filed detailed record showing
medical treatment availed by the applicant/ accused on account of mental
ill-health.
5.

On the other hand, Ld. SPP pointed out the conduct of the
applicant and submitted that, the application needs to be rejected.
6.

In the light of facts involved, arguments heard, the following
point arises for my consideration and I have noted my findings against
them for the following reasons:-
3
BA 10/15
POINTS
FINDINGS
1. Whether the applicant/ accused is entitled
for getting regular bail?

..In the affirmative
2. What order?

.. As per final order
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS.1 & 2 :7.

On going through the application, it reveals that, mainly it is
filed on medical ground. Initially, it is desirable to consider as to whether
there is a substance in the said ground. In this respect, I have gone
through the documents relied upon by the applicant and filed along with
the application. On going through all those documents, it can be observed
that uptill 2014 the applicant was taking treatment as he was suffering
from Schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder. Therefore, there is a
substance in the case of the applicant that on account of bonafide reason
he could not remain present during the trial.
8.

Now, coming towards merit. In this respect, the trial against co-
accused has already been concluded and therefore, further investigation is
not at all required. It is also not case of the prosecution side that, certain
investigation
regarding
applicant
is
required.

Therefore,
when
investigation is not required and the applicant is suffering from mental illhealth, it is always desirable to enlarge him on conditional bail.

I,
therefore, answer point under reference ‘in affirmative’ and proceed to
pass following order:-
4
BA 10/15
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.10 of 2015 is allowed.

2.

The applicant/ accused be enlarged on bail on P.R of
Rs.25,000/- as well as one or more solvent sureties in the like
amount.

3.

The applicant is directed to give attendance in the office of CBI,
Pune once in a month whenever convenient to him till
conclusion of the trial.

4.

The applicant is further directed not to tamper with prosecution
evidence in any manner.

5.

Application stands disposed off accordingly.
(H.S.Mahajan)
The Special Judge(CBI)/
The Addl.Sessions Judge,
Gr. Bombay.

Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 15.7.2015
: 15.7.2015
: 15.7.2015.

УI affirm the contents of this PDF file order/judgment are the same, word to word, as
per the original order/judgment.Ф
Name of Steno with post
:-
Nitin Vishwanath Ubale,
Selection Gr. Stenographer
Name of the Judge
(with Court No.)

:-
H.S. Mahajan (C.R. 51)
Special Judge(CBI)/ Addl.
Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay.

Date of pronouncement of
order/ judgment
:-
15.7.2015
Order / judgment signed by the
P.O. on
:-
15.7.2015
Order/judgment uploaded on
:-
15.7.2015.