Mumbai, November 2, 2018 – In a recent order, the Court of Session for Greater Bombay granted conditional bail to two engineers from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) who were arrested in a bribery case. The case, registered as Crime No. 37/2018 by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mumbai, involves allegations of offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The order was issued in Bail Application No. 780 of 2018, with CNR No.: MHCC02-013769-2018, during Remand Application No. 1047/2018.

The applicants, identified as Sadeeq Hamid Khan, aged 38 (Assistant Engineer), and Dayanand Ramesh Kuchekar, aged 28 (Junior Engineer), are accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from a hotel owner. According to the prosecution, the informant had applied for permission to erect a wooden and tarpaulin roof on his hotel. Accused No. 2, Dayanand Kuchekar, inspected the premises and allegedly directed the informant to meet Accused No. 1, Sadeeq Khan.

It is alleged that during subsequent meetings, Kuchekar informed the hotel owner that a bribe of ₹50,000 would be required, with 50% payable before the permission was granted and the remaining 50% after. The informant reported the matter to the ACB, which laid a trap. During the trap operation on October 25, 2018, Kuchekar was caught accepting ₹25,000 from the informant. The ACB team verified the facts using digital voice recordings, leading to the arrest of both engineers.

Both applicants sought bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Tiwari, Advocate, represented Applicant/Accused No. 1, and Mr. Yadav, Advocate, represented Applicant/Accused No. 2. Mr. S.E. Soshthe, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), appeared for the Respondent/State.

The defense argued that the investigation was nearly complete, and the applicants were willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. Advocate for Applicant No. 1 emphasized that his client had not accepted any bribe, even though a demand was alleged. Citing the case of Khemlo Sakharam Sawant V/s. State, the defense argued that bail is the rule and jail an exception in such cases. They also pointed out that all relevant documents had been seized, eliminating the possibility of tampering with evidence. Furthermore, most witnesses were public servants, reducing the likelihood of them being threatened.

The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the investigation was at an initial stage and statements from some witnesses were yet to be recorded. They contended that releasing the accused would give them an opportunity to influence witnesses and that the offence was serious.

Special Judge S.V. Yarlagadda, presiding over the case, acknowledged the seriousness of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, noting that demand and acceptance of a bribe is a grave matter, even though it does not attract the death penalty or life imprisonment. The court recognized the vulnerability of the informant and prosecution witnesses to influence from the accused, who are public servants. However, the court also noted that the trap proceedings were complete, and the bribe amount had been recovered.

To balance these concerns, the court decided to grant conditional bail.

The final order specified the following terms and conditions:

1. Both applicants are to be released on a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of ₹50,000 each, with one or two solvent sureties or a cash surety of ₹25,000 each.
2. The applicants must not repeat such offences and shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to the informant or any person acquainted with the facts of the case. They are to deposit an additional cash security of ₹25,000 each, which shall be liable for forfeiture in case of a breach of this condition, in addition to other liabilities including cancellation of bail.
3. The applicants are required to attend the ACB office from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. every Wednesday and Friday for six weeks from the date of their release.
4. The Applicants must make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as and when required.
5. The applicants shall not leave India without the court’s prior permission.

The bail application was disposed of accordingly. This order reflects the court’s attempt to balance the need to ensure the integrity of the investigation and the safety of witnesses with the applicants’ right to bail, imposing stringent conditions to prevent any potential interference.