BA.No.15н15
:1:
RA.No.19н15
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.15 OF 2015
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2015
IN
RC BA1/2015/A0023нMUMBAI
Shri. Vasant Gopinath Sarwade
Aged about 50 yrs., Indian
Residing at Bн8, 2nd floor, Gulmohar
Park CHS., Plot No.6, Sector No.15A,
New Panvel (E), Dist. Raigadн410206.

.. Applicant/Org. Accused No.1
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. C.B.I. A.C.B., Mumbai.

.. Respondents.

Advocate Mr. Kakade for the Applicant/Accused No.1.
SPP Mr. Gaikwad for the C.B.I.
CORAM : His Honour The Special Judge
SHRI. N. K. MORE
th
DATE: 19 October, 2015.
(Court Room No.52)
ORDER
1.

Perused the application and say filed by the learned SPP.

2.

Heard the learned Advocates for the accused and learned SPP.

3.

The learned Advocate for the accused submits that the accused is
not involved in the offence punishable for more than 7 years. The
prosecution has not produced prima facie evidence that the accused
demanded and accepted bribe amount. The alleged bribe amount is not
BA.No.15н15
seized from the accused.

:2:
RA.No.19н15
The said amount is alleged to have been
seized from the car of accused No.2. He submit that the accused was in
police custody for two days. The part of the investigation with the
accused has been completed.

The accused is not having criminal
antecedent. He is permanent resident of Navi Mumbai and residing
with his family members. The accused cannot be denied the bail on the
ground that the investigation is in progress. He is ready to abide by the
conditions, if any imposed by the Court.
4.

On the other hand, the learned SPP submits that the accused
involved in the serious offence. The investigation is in progress. If the
accused is released who is on the post of Deputy Director in the FSSAI
there is every possibilities of tampering the prosecution witness and
evidence at his hands.

The accused was caught red handed while
accepting the bribe amount of Rs.2 Lacs. If the accused is released on
bail, the wrong message will go to the society. The accused again will
indulgence in the same offence. He also submits that during the house
search, huge cash amount is recovered. He put reliance on the citation
in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 2734, Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. V.Vijay Sai Reddy reported in 2013 Cri. L.J. 3016,
Abdul Arshad Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2012 Cri.L.J. 655.
5.

In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation cited supra their Lordship observed that :
У While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
BA.No.15н15
:3:
RA.No.19н15
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations.Ф
6.

Keeping in mind above the said guidelines laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and considering the facts of the present case and
the submissions of the learned Advocates for the parties, I hold that the
accused is entitled to be released on bail because admittedly, the alleged
bribe amount has not been seized from the possession of the accused.
The said amount alleged to have been seized from the car of accused
No.2. The accused has no criminal antecedent.

He is permanently
resident of Navi Mumbai and residing with his family members.
Moreover, the offence registered against the accused is not punishable
with death or imprisonment of life.
7.

The learned Advocate for the accused rightly put reliance on the
citation in the case of Khemlo Sakharam Sawant Vs. State reported
in 2002(1) Bom. C.R. 689, wherein their Lordship observed that :
У In the present case, the punishment for offence
under section 12 is minimum six months and may
extend upto a period of five years. This offence,
therefore, cannot be equated with a serious offence
like murder, as has been observed the Sessions Court.
The Court should not be swayed away by the
perception of morality, but should confine its decision
to the requirements of law. The present application
was one for bail and the matter was not before the
Sessions Court for trial and imposing of sentence on
returning the findings of guilt. In case of bail, the law
is well settled. The Apex Court, has time and again
observed that bail is a rule and jail is an exception,
particularly when the offence in question is not an
BA.No.15н15
:4:
RA.No.19н15
offence which involves life or death sentence.Ф
In the reported case also the accused was arrested for the offence
under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bail application filed by
the accused was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge.
8.

The learned SPP submits that if the accused is released on bail,
there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution evidence of the
witness at the hands of the accused, but the anxiety of the learned SPP
can be taken care of directing the accused to attend the C.B.I. office and
not to indulgence in tampering with the prosecution witness/evidence.
The prosecution will be at liberty to file the application for cancellation
of bail, if the accused commits breach of condition. So considering all
these facts, I hold that the application is deserved to be allowed. In the
result, I proceed to pass the following order.
Order
1.

Bail Application No.15 of 2015 is allowed.

2.

The Accused No.1 be released on furnishing P.R. bond of
Rs.50,000/н (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with solvent surety in like
amount. The accused is allowed to furnish four sureties of Rs.15,000/н
each.
3.

The accused shall attend the C.B.I. office everyday from the date
of release on bail during 11.00 am. to 2.00 pm. for eight days and
thereafter, on every Monday and Friday during 11.00 am. to 2.00 pm.
till 23.11.2015.
4.

The
accused
witness/evidence.

shall
not
tamper
with
the
prosecution
BA.No.15н15
:5:
RA.No.19н15
Bail Application No.15 of 2015 in Remand Application No.19 of
2015 stands disposed of.

19.10.2015
Dictated on
: 19.10.2015
Typed on
: 26.10.2015
Signed by HHJ. : 27.10.2015
(N.K.More)
Special Judge for C.B.I.
Greater Bombay.

BA.No.15н15
:6:
RA.No.19н15
” I affirm that the contents of the PDF file judgment/order are
the same, word to word, as per the original judgment.”
Name of Steno with post :н Mrs. Pradnya Sandeep Naik
(Stenographer Higher Grade)
Name of the Judge (with Court No.) :н Shri. N.K. More (CR.No.52)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order :н 19.10.2015
Judgment/Order signed by the P.O. on :н 27.10.2015
Judgment/Order uploaded on :н 6.11.2015