R.A. 5/2016
B.A. 4/2016
1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 2016
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 05 OF 2016
(R.C. BA1/2016/A0020)
C.B.I., A.C.B., Mumbai
(R. C. BA1/2016/A0020)
Е Complainant
/ Respondent.

Versus
Sandeep Omprakash Agarwal
Е Accused No. 1
/ Applicant
PP Mr. Ashok Bagoria for C.B.I./ complainant.
Advocate Mr. Hirani for the applicant/ accused no. 1.

CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE
SPECIAL JUDGE (C.B.I.)
N. K. MORE (C.R.NO.52).
DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2016.
ORDER
1.

This is the bail application filed by the applicant/ accused no.

1 for grant of bail.
2.

Perused the application and say filed by the Learned SPP.

3.

Heard the learned advocate for the accused and the learned
SPP.

R.A. 5/2016
4.

2
B.A. 4/2016
The learned advocate for the accused submits that the accused
has no any concern with the offence alleged to have been committed by
him. The accused is permanent residence of Mumbai. He has no criminal
antecedents. He is ready to abide all the conditions, if any, imposed by the
court. The custodial interrogation of the accused is not necessary. He
submits that the accused is ready to furnish the bail as per the order passed
by the court.
5.

On the other hand the Learned SPP submits that there is prima
facie case made out against the accused. The accused were caught raid
handed while accepting bribe amount. The investigation is in progress. If
the accused is released on bail there is a possibility of tampering the
prosecution evidence at the hands of the accused. The offence is serious in
nature.
6.

Having regard to the submissions of the learned advocate for
the accused, the Learned SPP and on the going through the contents of the
application and the reply filed by the SPP, I have no hesitation to hold that
the application is deserves to be allowed because the accused were
remanded in police custody for two days. The custodial interrogation of
the accused is not necessary for further investigation.
permanent residence of Mumbai.

The accused is
The accused is not having criminal
antecedents. Merely, because the statements of some witnesses are to be
recorded as per the say of the learned SPP, it cannot be a ground to deny
the bail to the accused. The condition can be put that the accused shall
R.A. 5/2016
B.A. 4/2016
3
give his appearance before the investigating officer. So that he shall not
tampered with evidence/ witnesses of the prosecution.

Moreover, the
investigation is not completed yet so it will take some time for completion
of the investigation and submission of chargesheet against the accused in
the court.

So considering of these facts, I have no hesitation to hold that
the application is deserves to be allowed. In the result, I proceed to pass
the following order:
Order
1.

Bail Application No. 04 of 2016 is allowed.

2.
Accused No. 1 Sandeep Omprakash Agraval be released on
furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/н (Rs. Fifteen Thousand Only) with
surety in the like amount.
3.
The accused shall not tamper with the prosecution witness/
evidence.
4.
The accused shall attend before the Investigating Officer in the office
of CBI, Mumbai on every Monday and Thursday in between 11 am. to 1.00
pm. till further order.
5.
The accused is permitted to deposit cash of Rs. 15,000/н in the court
in lieu of surety for the period of one month. The cash amount be accepted
after treasury hours.
6.

Bail Application No. 04 of 2016 stands disposed of.

Date:н05.08.2016
Dictated on
: 05.08.2016.
Transcribed on : 08.08.2016.
Signed on
: 08.08.2016.

(N. K. More)
Special Judge (CBI)
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

R.A. 5/2016
4
B.A. 4/2016
УI affirm that the contents of the PDF file order/judgment are the same,
word to word, as per the original order.Ф
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) :н H.H.J. Shri. N. K. More.
(C.R. No. 52)
Name of Steno with post
:н Mrs. Supriya S. Girkar
(L.G. Stenographer)
Date of pronouncement of order/judgment :н 05.08.2016.
Order signed by the P.O. On
:н 08.08.2016.
Order uploaded on
:н 08.08.2016