Order
.. 1 ..
ACB Bail Application No. 238/2022
MHCC020046802022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
ACB BAIL APPLICATION NO. 238 OF 2022
(CNR No. MHCC020046802022)
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO. 354 OF 2022
Rajendra Sahadeo Naik
) Applicant/Orig. Accd.
No. 1.
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B., Mumbai
vide C. R. No. 23/2022).
Respdt./Complainant
)
)
)
Appearances :
Mr. Abhijit Mantri, Ld. Adv. for the applicant/orig. accused no. 1.
Mr. Pankaj Chavan, Ld. A.P.P. for the State/Respondent/ACB.
CORAM:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT, 1988
S. P. NAIKNIMBALKAR,
(C.R. No. 46).
DATED:
12th April, 2022.
:ORAL ORDER:
The application is filed by the applicant/original accused
..2..
no.1 Rajendra Sahadeo Naik under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C.” for short) for releasing him on bail. He is
arrested for the offence under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) is filed vide C.R. No. 23/2022
by the ACB. He is in Judicial Custody since 08/04/2022.
2.
The gist of prosecution case is that the wife of the
informant has filed an application to the office of project officer BMC.
On hearing appeal was dismissed. The informant has filed an application
dated 06.01.2022 with the BMC office East division, Andheri K. Accused
No.1, the public servant in the same office of BMC demanded
Rs.3,00,000/ from the informant for changing the appeal order and to
regularize the entry in the name of informant of his shop. The informant
complaint to the ACB about the demand of bribe on 18.02.2022.
Verification was carried on 21.02.2022. It was confirmed in the
verification that the accused demanded Rs.3,00,000/ from the
informant as a bribe with an ulterior motive to change the order of
appeal and regularize the entry in the shop record. On 04.04.2022 trap
of was laid. During the trap an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ were accepted
by accused No.2 as told to him by accused No.1 and thereby they were
caught redhanded. In the personal search Rs.80,000/ from accused
No.1 were seized. Rs. 3,00,000/ were found from the office of accused
No.1. Hence, FIR was filed against them for the aforementioned offence.
3.
The grounds on which bail is sought are that, the
applicant/accused
has
been
falsely
implicated.
Further
custody
interrogation is not necessary. Applicant is having unblemished service
record. All panchanama are done. He is permanent resident of Thane.
He is ready to abide with any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence,
bail may be granted.
..3..
4.
Notice was issued to the State/ACB. The prosecution has
opposed the bail application on the grounds that investigation is in
primary stage and the accused would destroy evidence, pressurize the
witnesses and accused would not be available, if released on bail. He has
not given satisfactory explanation regarding the amount. Hence, bail
may not be granted.
5.
In view of the above rival facts, the following points arise
for my consideration and I have given my findings against each of them
for the reasons recorded below :
Points
Findings
(1)
Whether the applicant/accused is entitled
to be released on bail under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?.. In the affirmative
(2)
What order ?
.. As per final order
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 :
6.
Heard both the sides and perused the case record.
7.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Abhijit Mantri for the applicant/accused
and Ld. A.P.P. Mr. Pankaj Chavan for the State/ACB have submitted as
per their respective contentions. Additionally, Ld. Adv Mr. Mantri has
submitted that accused No.2 has no connection with the amount
recovered from accused No.1. The amount of Rs.80,000/ recovered
from accused No.1 was pertaining to the collected rent and bank
withdrawal. The amount of Rs.3,00,000/ is not recovered at the
instance of accused No.1 but, from a cabin where accused No.1 was not
seated and not was having any control over it.
..4..
8.
As per the facts of prosecution case, primafacie, complicity
of applicant/accused with the offence is seen through the case record.
The applicant/accused was caught redhanded while accepting bribe of
Rs.3,00,000/. The amount is recovered and panchanamas are done.
9.
It is to be decided as to whether the physical custody of the
applicant/accused
is
necessary
during
the
course
of
pending
investigation. It is seen from the record that sufficient opportunity for
custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is already granted to
the ACB.
The applicant/accused was in P.C.R. since 05.04.2022 to
08.04.2022.
The
voice
sample
of
applicant/accused
is
taken.
Panchanamas are drawn. Therefore, there are no circumstances in the
Say of Investigating Officer to infer that the investigation is to be done
with the aid of applicant/accused, hereinafter.
10.
The apprehension of prosecution is pertaining to alleged
tampering of evidence at the hands of applicant/accused.
In that
regard, there is nothing in the Say of Investigating Officer that the
applicant/accused has any previous criminal record or is having criminal
antecedents to his discredit.
Thane.
He is residing on the given address at
Therefore, by imposing certain terms and conditions on the
applicant/accused, the objection of the prosecution can be taken care of.
11.
As bail is the rule and jail is an exception, considering the
facts of case and the role of applicant/accused in pending investigation
with regard to his criminal antecedents, he is entitled to be released on
bail on certain terms and conditions. No purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars.
There are no exceptional circumstances
pointed out by the prosecution to reject the bail plea of the
applicant/accused. Resultantly, I answer Point No. 1 in the affirmative
and with regard to Point No. 2, I proceed to pass the following order :
..5..
ORDER
1.
ACB Bail Application No. 238 of 2022 filed by applicant/original
accused
no.1
Rajendra
Sahadeo
Naik
in
ACB
Remand
Application No. 354/2022 (C.R. No. 23/2022) is hereby
allowed.
2.
The applicant/accused shall be released on his executing PB and
SB of Rs. 25,000/ (Rupees Twentyfive Thousand Only), with
one or more sureties in the like amount.
3.
The applicant/accused shall furnish his mobile/landline number,
the mobile/landline numbers of his two close relatives/friends
and his family members, who are residing preferably in Mumbai,
along with their residential proofs to the concerned police station
and shall not change his contact details till conclusion of trial.
4.
The applicant/accused shall also produce the proof of his
identity and proof of residence, at the time of executing bail
bond.
5.
The applicant/accused shall not contact the informant and
prosecution witnesses in any manner and will not tamper with
the prosecution evidence.
6.
The applicant/accused shall cooperate with the police during
investigation. He shall attend the concerned police station every
Thursday and Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, till
filing of the chargesheet.
7.
The applicant/accused shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Court.
..6..
8.
The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
9.
Provisional cash bail of Rs.25,000/ is accepted for a period of
next four weeks. Surety be complied till then.
10. Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused is directed to inform the
above conditions to the applicant/accused for compliance.
11. In case of breach/default of any of the above condition by the
applicant/accused, it would be viewed seriously and it would
entail cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.
12. ACB Bail Application No. 238/2022 filed by applicant/original
accused
no.1
Rajendra
Sahadeo
Naik
in
ACB
Remand
Application No. 354/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.)
Digitally signed
by
NAIKNIMBALKAR NAIKNIMBALKAR
SAMARENDRA
SAMARENDRA
PRAKASHRAO
PRAKASHRAO
Date: 2022.04.13
15:48:06 +0530
Date:12/04/2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Sent to Dept. on
:
:
:
:
(S. P. NAIKNIMBALKAR)
Special Judge under P.C. Act,
City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay
at Mumbai.
12/04/2022
12/04/2022
12/04/2022
..7..
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
13/04/2022 at 3.35 p.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Mrs. M. M. Kadam
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.
H.H.J. Shri. S. P. NaikNimbalkar
(Court Room No. 46)
)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 12/04/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on
12/04/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
13/04/2022