Mumbai, Maharashtra – On March 21, 2023, the Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay, M.R. Purwar (C.R. No. 53), granted regular bail to Shailendra Kumar Pal and Annamalaisamy Arunachalam in connection with a bribery case investigated by the CBI, ACB, Mumbai. The duo were arrested in RC-No. 0262023A0010, which alleges offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The bail was granted after considering that the “material investigation” appeared to be largely complete, with key evidence such as mobile phones, hard disks, a “chit,” voice samples, and handwriting specimens already collected. The court also noted the prosecution’s failure to substantiate its apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

The Allegations

The prosecution’s case, based on “reliable source information,” contends that Satish Chandra Jha, an Accounts Officer in the Store Section of the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy), Mumbai, was involved in corrupt practices. He allegedly colluded with private suppliers, routinely accepting bribes to expedite the payment of their bills.

Accused Annamalaisamy Arunachalam, proprietor of M/s. Ultra Marine, and Shailendra Kumar Pal, an employee of the firm, are alleged to be part of this scheme. Specifically, it was claimed that Arunachalam contacted Jha on October 28, 2022, and February 23, 2023, to inquire about bill payments and offered bribes. On March 6, 2023, Arunachalam reportedly directed his employee, Rajan, to ensure a bribe payment to a CDA officer for all bills. On the same day, Shailendra Kumar Pal allegedly called Satish Jha for a meeting, during which the demanded bribe was to be delivered. The prosecution claimed that on previous occasions, Arunachalam had paid bribes to Jha for clearing bills.

The CBI subsequently registered a case and conducted a trap operation. Satish Jha was allegedly caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 3,45,760/- from Shailendra Kumar Pal, which was purportedly given on behalf of Annamalaisamy Arunachalam. The amount was reportedly recovered from Jha.

Arguments for Bail

Ms. Anjali Patil, the learned counsel for both applicants, argued that her clients were innocent and falsely implicated. She asserted that no offence was committed and that legal formalities during their arrest were not complied with. She particularly highlighted that the First Information Report (FIR) was based on “source information” rather than a complaint from a de-facto complainant, implying a lack of direct demand, which is a key ingredient for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Ms. Patil emphasized that all major evidence, including mobile phones, hard disks, and the alleged bribe amount, had already been seized or recovered. House searches of the accused were conducted, and their voice samples and handwriting specimens were collected, suggesting that the “investigation virtually completed” once the trap was laid and the amount recovered. She argued that the case was largely based on documentary evidence, minimizing the possibility of tampering.

The defence also pointed out that Annamalaisamy Arunachalam is a retired Ex-Navy employee whose firm, M/s. Ultra Marine Services, contributes to the Navy’s repair work. They stated that bill follow-ups were routine business practice, and Satish Jha was not the sole authority for approving payments, thus negating the need for a bribe.

The applicants offered to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court and assured that they would not tamper with evidence. They also cited several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including Arnesh Kumar v/s. State of Bihar, Satender Kumar Antil v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, and Chanda Deepak Kochher v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation, to support their plea for bail.

Prosecution’s Opposition

Mr. P.K.B. Gaikwad, the learned Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for CBI, ACB, Mumbai, opposed the bail application, arguing that the offence was serious. He stated that a conspiracy was hatched and that Satish Jha was caught red-handed accepting the bribe from Shailendra Pal on behalf of Annamalaisamy Arunachalam. He claimed that all legal formalities were followed during the arrests and that the investigation was at a “crucial stage,” with many witnesses yet to be examined and documentary evidence to be collected.

The SPP expressed concerns that the accused were “highly influential persons” and there was a “reasonable apprehension of tampering.” He also contended that releasing them on bail could lead to them indulging in similar offences, citing cases like The State v/s. Jagjit Singh, Ram Govind Upadhayay v/s. Sudarshan Singh, and Nimmagadda Prasad v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation.

Court’s Rationale

Special Judge M.R. Purwar meticulously considered the arguments and reviewed the case records. While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the court found the prosecution’s claims of tampering or influencing witnesses to be unsubstantiated. “Nothing brought on record to substantiate the same,” the order stated. The court also observed that the facts of the cases cited by the SPP were “quite different” from the present one, which primarily revolved around a trap involving the demand and acceptance of a bribe.

The court noted that the FIR was indeed registered based on “source information,” and that “material investigation is completed” given the recovery of crucial evidence. The fact that the investigating officer had himself claimed judicial custody of the accused after a period of police custody further supported the completion of primary investigative steps. The court also took into account that the accused are residents of Mumbai and have no prior criminal antecedents on record.

Considering the nature of the accusations, the severity of potential punishment, and the current stage of the investigation, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail, albeit with stringent conditions to address the prosecution’s concerns.

Bail Conditions

Both Shailendra Kumar Pal and Annamalaisamy Arunachalam have been granted bail, subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. Each applicant must furnish a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.
2. They must provide correct details of their permanent/temporary residential addresses, office addresses (if any), landline and mobile phone numbers, E-mail IDs, and the names and particulars of two persons to be contacted if the accused is absent in the future.
3. They must submit an undertaking to inform the court of any change in their address in the future.
4. They shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
5. They shall not tamper with the evidence in the case or influence any witness.
6. They shall not commit any offence during the period they are released on bail.
7. Breach of any of these conditions will serve as a ground for the cancellation of their bail.

The Bail Application No. 220/2023 was accordingly disposed of. The order was signed by Judge M.R. Purwar on March 21, 2023.