ACB B.A.No.406/2022
MHCC020076582022
IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE SPECIAL JUDGE, UNDER THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, AT GR. BOMBAY
ACB BAIL APPLICATION NO. 406 OF 2022
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO. 625 OF 2022
IN
C.R. NO. 29 OF 2022
Salim Mehboob Almelkar
… Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of ACB, Mumbai, Vide
C.R.No.29/2022)
… Respondent
Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Ms. Geeta Nayyar for the State.
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (ACB)
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.42)
DATED : 15TH JUNE, 2022
Page 1 of 7
ACB B.A.No.406/2022
ORDER
By this application the applicant Salim Mehboob Almelkar
being accused in C.R.No. 29/2022 registered with ACB,
Mumbai
Division, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 7(a) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as, “The
PC Act”) seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (In short, “CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

The sleuth of ACB, Mumbai was in receipt of complaint
from one Imranali Rehmat Ali Shaikh who had initiated construction of
his new bunglow at open plot No. 43 at Malwani, Mhada, wherein after
commencement of the work, the complainant had applied for a new
water connection as on dated 06.06.2022. While the complainant was
on the morning walk and an individual known to him by name Salim
Almelkar i.e. applicant/accused met him and said that he can help him
for legal water connection if the complainant pays Rs.1,00,000/- against
it.
3.

It is further stated that, the applicant/accused stated that,
as the water connection would be in extra such amount is required to be
paid. Thus, in this regard the complainant approached to ACB, Mumbai
Office as on 07.06.2022 and tendered his handwritten complaint.
Accordingly a verification was done as on 07.06.2022.

During said
verification the accused No. 1 in the presence of panchas demanded
Rs.1,00,000/- and upon trap being laid the accused No. 1 accepted
Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and Rs.20,000/- were told to be
handed over to applicant/accused. Accordingly, as per the prosecution
Page 2 of 7
ACB B.A.No.406/2022
the trap was successful and the applicant/accused was duly intercepted
on the spot, post compliances an offence was registered against the
applicant/accused and the accused No. 1 and they were put under
arrest.
4.

Thereafter, the voice samples of the accused were taken as
on 09.06.2022 and the search of residence of the accused No. 1 was
also carried on wherein Rs.13,50,100/- alongwith 45 grams of Gold qua
receipts thereof, 12 policies etc. was found at the residence and for
which no cogent explanation was given by the applicant/accused and
the said amounts alongwith the investments are in the form of
disproportionate assets and the said facts are not pertaining to the
applicant/accused.
5.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is falesly implicated. It is further stated that, the area
in which the water connection is sought by the complainant is highly
dense and is a slum area. It is further stated that, various illegal water
connections have been taken by different persons and an officer by
name Ritesh Manohar Jaiswal who decided to take action against such
illegal water connections had also to face such cases against him. The
Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has filed the order of the Hon’ble
High Court with regard to the said officer. It is further contended that,
the wife of the applicant/accused is a social worker and Ex-Corporator.
The applicant/accused had raised objections with regard to the illegal
water connection proposed to be procured by the complainant, he is
falsely arrayed in the present matter. Moreover, the applicant/accused
is not a public servant and in no way has any connection with that of
Page 3 of 7
ACB B.A.No.406/2022
the accused No. 1. The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has also
filed the application filed by him vide Exh.B with the Ex-Corporator’s
office and lastly, the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused prayed for
enlargement of the applicant/accused on bail.
6.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2
and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds. The
prosecution categorically states that, the applicant/accused is a private
person and that if he is enlarged on bail, he would not be available
before this Court and would abscond, it is further stated that the
applicant/accused has hereinbefore helped accused public servant in
procuring bribes and the said fact has been revealed during the course
of investigation. Considering the same the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for
rejection of application.
7.

Heard Ld. for the applicant/accused and Ld. APP for the
State. Perused application, reply and the investigation papers.
8.

The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has categorically
stated that, the complainant himself has obtained the illegal
connections and in order to waive of any such action against him has
falsely implicated the applicant/accused. To that effect the Ld. Advocate
for applicant/accused has relied upon the document filed at Exh.B. It is
pertinent that in order to substantiate the initial theory of morning walk
nothing has been placed on record, nor the applicant/accused was ever
present at the time of alleged incident.

Page 4 of 7
ACB B.A.No.406/2022
9.

Ld. APP submits that, the applicant was held in police
custody until 10.06.2022, thereafter, he is in judicial custody till date.
The prosecution has stated that, further documents and evidences are
yet to be collected and that the statements of witnesses are yet to be
recorded. Therefore, the only apprehension of the prosecution with
regard to the abscondence and collection of documents and evidences
can be taken care of. It is evident that the voice samples are obtained
and the search of residence is also conducted and the tainted amount is
also recovered from accused No.1.

The applicant is a resident of
Mumbai and it does not appear that there are any chances of
abscondence.

Therefore, as stated hereinabove the detention of the
applicant/accused is not necessitated as the same can be taken care of
by saddling stringent conditions on the applicant/accused. Thus, in the
backdrop of the aforesaid facts, I hold that the application deserves to
be allowed. Hence, order infra:ORDER
1. ACB Bail Application No. 406 of 2022 is allowed.
2. The applicant Salim Mehboob Almelkar being accused
in C.R.No. 29/2022 registered with ACB, Mumbai
Division, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under
Section 7, 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, be released on furnishing P. R. bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one
or two sureties in the like amount.
3. The applicant Salim Mehboob Almelkar and his surety
shall provide their respective residential addresses,
mobile numbers and email addresses, if any.
4. The applicant Salim Mehboob Almelkar shall not
directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
present case to dissuade them from disclosing such
facts to the Court.
Page 5 of 7
ACB B.A.No.406/2022
5. The applicant Salim Mehboob Almelkar shall not
tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
6. The applicant Salim Mehboob Almelkar shall attend
ACB, Worli, Mumbai on every Friday between 11.00
a.m. and 4.00 p.m. until filing of charge-sheet.
7. The applicant Salim Mehboob Almelkar shall
surrender his passport if any with the investigating
officer. If the applicant doesn’t have passport, he will
furnish an affidavit to that effect.
8. The applicant Salim Mehboob Almelkar shall not leave
Maharashtra without permission of this Court.
9. ACB Bail Application No. 406 of 2022 stands disposed
of accordingly.

ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 15.06.2022
Digitally signed by
ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2022.06.15
17:21:35 +0530
(DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Special Judge, A.C.B.
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.42)
Dictated on
: 15.06.2022
Transcribed on : 15.06.2022
HHJ signed on : 15.06.2022
Page 6 of 7
ACB B.A.No.406/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
15.06.2022
05.20 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
(Stenographer Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court HHJ DR. A. A.
Room No.)
(Court Room No. 42)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT /ORDER
of
15.06.2022
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O.
on
15.06.2022
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on
15.06.2022
Page 7 of 7
JOGLEKAR