2
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR
GR.BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.78 OF 2017
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.114 OF 2017
IN
ACB, GMU MUMBAI CR NO.3/2017
Mr.Sanjiv Pushpawardhan Shah
OccupationнService
Ageн50 years, an adult Indian
Residing atн204, Parvati Prema 96,
Dixit Road, Vile Parle(E),
Mumbaiн400 057
..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of A.C.B.Worli,
Mumbai)
..Respondent
Ld. advocate Mr.Khobragade for the applicant
Ld. APP Mr.Lade for the State.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR THE SPECIAL JUDGE
SHRI S.V.RANPISE(CR NO.17)
DATE: 02/02/2017
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.03 of 2017 filed in Remand Application No.114 of 2017
2
registered with A.C.B. Mumbai for the offences punishable u/s.
7,13(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 30/01/2017 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 falsely implicated in the same, he is a
public servant, he is resident of VileнParle,
Mumbai, he has family to look after, he has no
criminal antecedents, his family depends upon
him, he was working as an Assistant Engineer
with BMC, he has no role to play, he is
innocent, etc.,.
3.

State has filed say and raised objection on the
ground that the grounds made out by the applicant are not proper
and the same are false, the investigation is at primary stage and
another absconding accused is not yet traceable, therefore State
has prayed for rejection of this application.
4.

Following points arise for my determination.
POINTS
1.

Is applicant entitled for bail as sought for?

2.

What order?

2
5.

My findings thereon with reasons thereto are as
follows:н
FINDINGS
1.

In the affirmative.

2.

As per final order.

REASONS
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate Mr.Khobragade for the
applicant and Ld. APP Mr.Lade for the State. Heard investigating
officer Mr.Pardeshi.
Point No.1
7.

From the submissions it is gathered that by way
of reply, prosecution has raised serious objection, but, during the
course of his arguments, Ld. Advocate Mr.Pardeshi prayed for
imposing certain conditions. Moreover, the custodial interrogation
of the present applicant is over. No doubt the grievance is raised
that another accused is absconding, but, the presence of this
applicant can be secured by imposing certain conditions.

It is
further important to note that applicant is permanent resident of
Mumbai and he has challenged the allegations seriously and he
has shown his ready and willingness to abide by any conditions
imposed by the Court.
circumstances, I
Considering the said facts and
hold it proper to allow this application by
imposing certain conditions.

So, I answer point No.1 in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following order:н
2
ORDER
1.

Application is allowed.

2.

Applicant be enlarged on Bail on
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 in between 12.00 noon and
1.00 p.m. daily for two weeks
continuously, immediately he is
released on bail.

02/02/2017.

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

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

06/02/16 at 12.05 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
2
Name of the Judge
HHJ SHRI S.V.RANPISE, CR NO.17
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
02/02/17
Judgment and order signed by P.O.

02/02/17
Judgment/order uploaded on
06/02/17
Ex.2
Application filed by adv. Mr.Khobragade for cash
Security.
Court passed order below Ex.2:н
ORDER
Perused the application and say filed by A.P.P.
Heard Adv.Mr.Khobragade.
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.

2
02/02/2017.

S.V.RANPISE
SPECIAL JUDGE.

CORAM: HIS HONOUR THE SPL. JUDGE SHRI S.V.RANPISE
DATE: 02/02/2017
BAн78/2017
Ld. Advocate Mr.Khobragade for the
applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Mr.Lade for the State.
F.R.S.R. the following order is passed:н
ORDER
1.

Application is allowed.

2.

Applicant be enlarged on Bail on
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
2
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 in between 12.00 noon and
1.00 p.m. daily for two weeks
continuously, immediately he is
released on bail.
Ex.2
Application filed by adv. Mr.Khobragade
for cash Security.
Court passed order below Ex.2:н
ORDER
Perused the application and say filed by
A.P.P.
Heard Adv.Mr.Khobragade.
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.

02/02/2017.

S.V.RANPISE
SPECIAL JUDGE.

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

07/01/17 at 5.00 pm.
MRS.T.C.KAMBLE
2
Name of the Judge
HHJ SHRI S.V.RANPISE, CR NO.17
Date of Pronouncement of
judgment/order
07/01/2017
Judgment and order signed by P.O.

07/01/2017
Judgment/order uploaded on
07/01/2017