:1:
Bail Appl. No. 49/2018
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 49 OF 2018
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2018
(R.C. No. BA1/2018/A0003, CBI, ACB, Mumbai)
SHRI. SHARADCHANDRAN K. SWAMINATHAN,
Aged 55 years, Occ.:Service,
Residing at Flat No. 1302, 13th Floor,
Dosti Erica, Dosti Acre, Complex Wadala (East),
Mumbai.
(At present lodged in judicial custody).
Applicant/
Orig. Accused
V/s.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
ACB, Mumbai.
Respondent/
Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE,
(C. R. No. 51).
DATED :
23rd January, 2018.
Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam, Ld. Advocate for the applicant/orig. accd.
Mr. Omprakash, Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/ACB/Respdt.
ORAL ORDER
1
This is an application placed by the applicant/original
accused for bail u/sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against
whom the offence punishable u/sec. 7 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption
:2:
Bail Appl. No. 49/2018
Act, 1988 has been registered by CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
2
Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant/original accused and Ld. S.P.P. for the CBI/Respondent. The
Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has reiterated the contents of
application. The prosecution has raised objection to grant prayer in the
application. It has given say on the application. I have perused the
application
and
applicant/accused.
documents
produced
on
behalf
of
the
I have also perused the say given by the
prosecution.
3
The applicant/accused has contended that it is alleged that
few months
back he had approached
the
coaccused
Ashish
Parmathanand Thakur in his office for favorable consideration of his file
pertaining to promotion to the rank of Assistant Commissioner, which
was pending on account of certain disciplinary proceeding initiated
against him. It is alleged by the CBI that the coaccused Ashish Thakur,
who works as Assistant Section Officer, ADII Section, Central Board of
Excise and Customs (CBEC), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi had
demanded illegal gratification from the applicant/accused, working as
Superintendent, CBEC at GST, Old Customs House, Mumbai for
favorably managing/processing his file for promotion.
There is no
evidence that the applicant/accused was a part of said illegal act. The
applicant/accused is falsely implicated in the said offence by the CBI
officers due to complaints made by the applicant/accused against them
in connection with earlier raid by Income Tax Department. The search
of premises of applicant/accused was carried out by the CBI, however
nothing incriminating was found.
prayed to allow the application.
Hence, the applicant/accused has
:3:
4
Kumar
Bail Appl. No. 49/2018
The prosecution has contended that the accused Ashish
Thakur
has
demanded
illegal
gratification
from
the
applicant/accused for favorable managing his promotion matter in lieu
of which, he has approached few months back to him. Ashish Kumar
Thakur engaged the coaccused Ravindra Kumar Mandal to accept the
aforesaid illegal gratification from the applicant/accused. The trap was
laid and the accused persons were caught while delivery of illegal
gratification. There is sufficient evidence on record. The investigation
of the case is at initial stage. If the applicant/accused is released on
bail, it will hamper the progress of investigation. The crucial witnesses
are yet to be examined. The allegations against the applicant/accused
are of a very serious nature and the acts of applicant/accused have a
bearing on the society. Hence, the prosecution has prayed to reject the
application.
5
It appears from the record that in the present case, the
applicant/accused has been arrested for the offence punishable u/sec. 7
& 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has been argued on
behalf of the investigating authority that the crucial witnesses are yet to
be examined and the applicant/accused may influence the witnesses
and may tamper with the evidence.
It has to be seen that all the
accused were already arrested and they were released on temporary
bail. The investigation indicates that it is nearly completed. There is no
possibility of absconding of the applicant/accused.
It has to be
remembered that the applicant/accused is a public servant and he is
having permanent job in government.
Moreover, there will be no
propriety to keep the applicant/accused behind bar.
An offence
registered, is only u/sec. 7 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
:4:
Bail Appl. No. 49/2018
There is no ground to presume that the applicant/accused may tamper
with the evidence or scuttle the process of investigation. Obviously, the
purpose of securing bail is to procure presence of accused during the
trial. The presence of applicant/accused can be secured by imposing
condition.
The trial will take its own time.
Moreover, the
applicant/accused has assured to cooperate the investigating officer as
and when required and attend the trial. The nature of offence is such
that custody of applicant/accused for further investigation is not
required. If he is kept in custody, there will be every possibility of his
coming in contact with harden criminals. However, considering the
gravity of offence, heavy surety is require to be taken from the
applicant/accused.
Therefore, in
the
interest
of
justice,
the
applicant/accused can be released on bail subject to certain conditions.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1
Bail Application No. 49/2018 in CBI Remand Application
No. 38/2018 (RC No. BA1/2018/A0003, CBI, ACB, Mumbai) is hereby
allowed.
2
Applicant/original accused SHRI. SHARADCHANDRAN K.
SWAMINATHAN is hereby directed to be released on executing P.R.
Bond of Rs. 50,000/ (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). Further, he is
hereby directed to furnish one or more sureties of the like amount
within three months.
3
Applicant/accused is directed not to leave India without
obtaining prior permission from this Court.
:5:
4
Bail Appl. No. 49/2018
Further, till furnishing surety, the applicant/accused is
directed to surrender his passport, if any, with CBI.
5
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish his permanent
address as well as permanent contact numbers to the CBI.
6
The applicant/accused is directed to furnish addresses of
his two relatives and their permanent addresses and contact numbers to
the CBI.
7
Applicant/accused is further directed not to tamper with
the prosecution evidence and to assist in disposal of trial.
8
Applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while on
bail.
9
Breach of any of the above conditions will amount to
cancellation of bail granted to the applicant/accused.
10
Applicant/accused is hereby directed to remain present
before investigating officer on every Tuesday in between 10.00 a.m. to
4.00 p.m. till further order.
11
The Registrar (Sessions) is hereby directed to accept the
cash amount of bail After Treasury Hours.
12
Earlier interim cash bail granted vide order dated
12/01/2018 will be continued till furnishing fresh surety/ies.
:6:
13
Bail Appl. No. 49/2018
Bail Application No. 49/2018 in CBI Remand
Application No. 38/2018 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court.)
(Jayendra C. Jagdale)
The Special Judge for CBI,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dated : 23/01/2018
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
: 23/01/2018
: 24/01/2018
: 24/01/2018
:
:7:
Bail Appl. No. 49/2018
“Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
judgment/order”.
Upload Date & Time : 24/01/2018 at 5.10 p.m.
Smt. G. K. Kotawadekar
Name of the Stenographer
H.H.J. SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE (C. R. No. 51)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order :23/01/2018
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :24/01/2018
Judgment/order uploaded on :24/01/2018