2
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR
GR.BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.233 OF 2017
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.372 OF 2017
IN
ACB, GMU MUMBAI CR NO.11/2017
Sanjay Kashinath Patil,
Aged 54 years, OccupationнService
R/o: ‘D’ Wing, Sanskar Building,
Neelam Nagar, Mulund(E),
Mumbaiн400 081
..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B.Worli,
Mumbai)
..Respondent
Ld. advocate Mr.Vijay Desai for the applicant
Ld. APP Mr.Lade for the State.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI S.V.RANPISE(CR NO.17)
DATE: 25/04/2017
Application for bail
ORAL ORDER
1.

Present application is filed by the applicant u/s. 439 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for bail in connection with
CR No.11 of 2017 filed in Remand Application No.372 of 2017
registered with A.C.B. Mumbai for the offences punishable u/s.

2
7,8,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
registered against this applicant.
2.

Applicant was arrested in the present C.R.

registered with ACB, Mumbai on 20/04/2017 and since then he is
in custody. Now custodial interrogation is over and therefore he
has filed this application on the following grounds:н
GROUNDS
That he is not committed the offence as alleged,
he is permanent resident of Mumbai, he is a
public servant, he has no criminal antecedents, his
family depends upon him, he has roots in the society
etc.,.
3.

State has filed say and raised objection on the
ground that serious offences are levelled against this applicant and
investigation is still incomplete. Therefore if applicant is released
on bail, he is likely to pressurize the witnesses and tamper with the
evidence.
4.

Following points arise for my determination.
POINTS
5.
follows:н
1.

Is applicant entitled for bail as sought for?

2.

What order?
My findings thereon with reasons thereto are as
2
FINDINGS
1.

In the affirmative.

2.

As per final order.

REASONS
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate Mr.Vijay Desai for the
applicant and Ld. APP Mr.Lade for the State. Heard investigating
officer Smt.Deshmukh.
Point No.1
7.

From the submissions it is gathered that
custodial interrogation is over.

Moreover, the amount of
Rs.50,000/н involved in the said crime is already recovered.
Applicant has contended that he is falsely involved in this crime.
He is a public servant and has shown his ready and willingness to
abide by any conditions imposed by the Court. So also though State
has raised objection in writing, but, during the course of oral
submissions, investigating officer and Ld.A.P.P. Mr.Lade both have
frankly submitted to allow this application subject to condition of
attendance. Considering the said facts and circumstances, I hold it
proper to allow this application by imposing stringent conditions.
So, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass
the following order:н
ORDER
1.

Application is allowed.

2.

Applicant be enlarged on Bail on
2
executing P.R.Bond of Rs.20,000/н
(Rs.twenty thousand only) with one or
more solvent sureties in the like amount,
subject to the conditions that Applicant
should not leave Mumbai without
prior permission of this Court,
should not pressurize the witnesses, &
tamper with the evidence and should
attend concerned A.C.B. Office on every
Monday and Tuesday in between
11.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till further
orders.
25/04/2017.

S.V.RANPISE
SPECIAL JUDGE,
UNDER P.C.ACT
MUMBAI.

2
Ex.2
Application filed by adv. Mr.Vijay Desai for cash
Security.
Court passed order below Ex.2:н
ORDER
Perused the application and say filed by A.P.P.
Heard Adv.Mr.Vijay Desai.
Application is allowed.
Applicant is allowed to submit provisionally
cash security of Rs.20,000/н for the period of
four weeks.
Registrar(S) is directed to accept the cash
after office hours.

25/04/2017.

S.V.RANPISE
SPECIAL JUDGE.

2
‘CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDERФ.

27/04/17 at 3.30 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
Name of the Judge
HHJ SHRI S.V.RANPISE, CR NO.17
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
25/4/17
Judgment and order signed by P.O.

26/4/17
Judgment/order uploaded on
27/4/17