..1..

MHCC020178952023
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1041 OF 2023
Sanju H. Aralikatti
Age: Adult, Occ : Service in Indian Navy
Residing at : 9/4-D, New Navy Nagar,
Colaba, Mumbai
.. Applicant/accused
Versus
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
.. Respondent/prosecution
Shri. Rajendra R. Mishra, Advocate for applicant/accused
Shri. Vimal Soni, SPP for respondent
CORAM :
S. H. GWALANI, SPECIAL JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.48
DATED :
02nd DECEMBER, 2023
ORAL ORDER
Applicant/accused
Sanju
H.

Aralikatti,
has
filed
present
application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
in RC 0262023A0037, CBI, ACB, Mumbai, registered for offence
punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Case of the prosecution in brief as under :
2.

CBI has registered the case vide RC 0262023A0037, CBI, ACB,
Mumbai, for offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against the applicant/
..2..

accused, Medical Sailor, INHS, Ashwini Hospital, Colaba, Mumbai, on
the basis of written complaint of Hemant Nikumbh for demand of bribe
amount of Rs.30,000/- as an undue advantage for getting positive
medical
report
in
medical
examination
of
complainant.

After
verification of complaint, crime came to be registered and applicant/
accused was arrested.
3.

After police arrest, applicant/accused was remanded to judicial
custody. Now, by filing bail application, applicant/accused has claimed
that allegations made against him are false, baseless and contrary to the
actual facts. He has been falsely and wrongly implicated in a false case
and no offence under section 7 of the P. C. Act as alleged is made out
against him. FIR does not disclosed that he has any knowledge or
intention to commit alleged crime. He has no criminal antecedent and
nor he was convicted for any offence. He has been implicated in present
case only to harass and humiliate as he was not ready to help the
complainant illegally. Complainant is candidate for job in Indian Navy
and he himself requested applicant to help him to clear his re-medical.
Applicant has co-operated in investigation. He has provided his voice
sample and handwriting to the prosecution. Since 19.11.2023, he is
behind bar. He will abide by any terms and conditions as imposed by
this Court while passing order. Accordingly, applicant prayed in above
terms.
4.

CBI strongly opposed the application by filing their reply vide
Exh.02, denied the contents of application and reiterated the case of the
prosecution. It is the contention of CBI that investigation is at initial
stage and statement of witnesses and other material witnesses are yet to
be recorded. During house search of the accused, CBI has recovered the
..3..

slip on which name and mobile phone number of few candidates/
recruit who attended re-medical at INHS Ashiwini Hospital on 15 and
16.11.2023, have been recovered. Investigation revealed that accused
deleted Whatsapp messages between him and complainant vide which
he has demanded bribe from the complainant. One more candidate has
also stated that accused has demanded and collected bribe of Rs.5000/from him. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that accused has not only
collected bribe from the complainant alone but has also demanded
bribe from other candidates. So, detail investigation is to be carried out
in order to unearth large conspiracy in this racket. Applicant/accused is
involved in corrupt practices and accepted illegal gratification/bribe
from complainant as well as one other candidate. Number of witnesses
who were medically examined on 15.11.2023 and 16.11.2023, are yet
to be examined and crucial documentary evidence is to be collected.
Accused is an influential person and if accused is released on bail then
there is strong apprehension that he may threats the candidates, he may
influence the witnesses and may tamper with the other evidence which
is yet to be collected and therefore, may hamper the investigation.
Accordingly, CBI prayed that instant application is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed.
5.

Perused bail application, reply, remand application and case diary.

Heard Shri. Rajendra Mishra, learned advocate for applicant/accused
and Shri. Vimal Soni, learned SPP for CBI at length. They argued in
terms of respective contention of party.
6.

At this stage, the Court has to consider nature and seriousness of
accusation, severity of offences, nature of evidence collected, character
and behaviour of the accused, possibility of tampering of evidence and
..4..

accused absconding. The existence of a prima facie case is only to be
examined. Detail discussion of evidence and elaborate documentation
of merits is to be avoided.

It is settled that Уmere that any economic
offence has been registered cannot be a sole ground to refuse
anticipatory bail or regular bail.Ф In the light of above legal principle,
bail application has to be considered on its merit.
7.

In the present case, CBI has invoked section 7 of the P. C. Act
against the applicant/accused. Punishment provided for this offence is
up to Seven Years. Role attributed to applicant/accused is that, he has
demanded Rs.30,000/- from complainant for getting positive medical
report in medical examination of complainant without verification of
complainant and he directed the complainant to transfer said amount in
his
bank
account
through
his
phone-pay
bearing
phone
No.8356062133. As per direction of applicant/accused, complainant
has made part payment of Rs.5,000/- from his account maintained in
Bank of Baroda. Accused has accepted bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- in
total on his aforesaid own phone pay number. Thereafter, accused has
demanded remaining bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-.
8.

It further appears that searches under section 165 of CrPC were
conducted at residential premises of accused and certain incriminating
documents including 2 handwritten slips purportedly in the handwriting
of applicant/accused were seized on which chest number/serial number
and mobile number of few persons were written. It further appears that
applicant/accused was arrested on 19.11.2013 at 02.25 hours, after
observing all legal formalities to prevent him from committing any
further offence for recovery of fact, proper investigation of the offence,
prevent the accused from tampering with evidence, prevent the accused
..5..

from winning over the witnesses and to secure his presence before the
Court.
9.

Initially, applicant/accused was remanded to police custody and
thereafter, on 24.11.2023, he has been remanded to judicial custody as
per request made by the prosecution/investigating agency. This itself
shows his custodial interrogation with CBI is not required. Accused is
behind bars since 19.11.2023. Investigating Officer has already
collected incriminating material and recorded the statement of
witnesses. Therefore, in above background and in view of the facts
mentioned in aforesaid paras, there is no need to have custodial
interrogation of applicant/accused. Learned advocate for applicant/
accused submitted that applicant is already suspended. CBI has also not
disputed the said fact. That being so, possibility of his getting access to
the documents in office is remote. Present matter is related to trap
case. So, prima facie, at this stage, custodial interrogation of this
accused is now not necessary.
10.

Applicant is public servant and his permanent residences is at
Karnataka and presently, he is residing at Mumbai. Thus, in the facts of
matter his possibility of absconding does not appear to be well founded.
So far apprehension of CBI that recording of statement of the witnesses
who were medically examined and collection of crucial documentary
evidence, are yet to be done is concerned; however, the same can be
done by following due procedure of law. But for that purpose, further
incarceration of applicant/accused is not required. Allegations of the
prosecution that accused is influential person and he may threaten the
candidates if released on bail, are vague and of general nature. Even
otherwise same can be addressed by imposing certain conditions.

..6..

Therefore, in the light of discussion made above and in the facts of
matter, I am inclined to exercise discretion of granting bail to applicant/
accused. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.1041 of 2023 is allowed.

2.
Applicant/accused Sanju H. Aralikatti be released on bail on his
executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
one or more sureties in like amount.
3.
Applicant/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or tamper with evidence.
4.
He shall furnish his permanent residential address and so also
local address if any along with mobile number to the Court and
Investigating officer. In case of change of address and mobile number
he shall intimate the same in advance to the Court and Investigating
officer.
5.
He shall not abscond, cooperate in investigation and attend the
CBI Office, B.K.C., Mumbai, as and when required by Investigating
Officer until further order.
6.

He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

7.

Accordingly, bail application stands disposed of.

Date : 02.12.2023
(S. H. Gwalani)
Special Judge, CBI
Gr. Bombay
..7..

УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.Ф
05.12.2023, 5.00 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S. P. Pawar
Stenographer (Grade – I)
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Shri. S. H. Gwalani
Room No.)
C.R.No.48
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
02.12.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 05.12.2023
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
05.12.2023