Mumbai: In a significant development, Rajesh Kumar Jha, a 45-year-old Chief Commercial Inspector with the Central Railway, CSMT, Mumbai, has been granted regular bail by the Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay, M.R. Purwar. Jha was arrested on charges of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 20,000/-. The order, issued on March 24, 2023, allows Jha’s release on a PR Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties of the like amount.
The case, registered as RC No. 0262023A0020, by the CBI, ACB, Mumbai, stems from a written complaint filed on March 13, 2023, by Mr. Ramavatar Meena, a Ticket Checker with Central Railway, Mumbai. Meena alleged that Jha demanded a bribe from him.
According to the prosecution, the complaint was verified on March 14, 2023. Following the registration of the First Information Report (FIR), a trap was laid on March 15, 2023, during which Jha was allegedly caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount from the complainant. Jha was subsequently remanded to police custody on March 16, 2023, and later to judicial custody on March 18, 2023, as requested by the investigating officer.
Jha’s legal counsel, Advocate Mahesh Yadav, argued that his client had not committed any offense and was falsely implicated. He highlighted that Jha is a permanent resident of Ulwe, Raigad, and a public servant, making the possibility of him absconding negligible. The defense emphasized that the bribe amount had already been recovered, voice samples collected, and nothing further remained to be recovered in the investigation. They asserted that the case was primarily based on documentary evidence and that, since both witnesses and the accused are public servants, there was no chance of threatening or influencing them. Advocate Yadav assured the court that Jha was prepared to abide by all imposed conditions and noted his client had no past criminal record. He sought bail, citing case laws such as Satender Kumar Antil V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) and Khemlo Sakharam Sawant V/s. State (2002), among others.
Conversely, Ld. SPP P.K.B. Gaikwad, representing the CBI, ACB, Mumbai, strongly opposed the bail application. The prosecution contended that the offense was serious and that there was sufficient prima facie material to establish Jha’s involvement. They argued that the investigation was still at a crucial stage, with a number of witnesses yet to be examined and documentary evidence to be collected, raising concerns about the possibility of tampering with or hampering prosecution evidence if Jha were released on bail.
After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the case records, including the cited judgments, Special Judge M.R. Purwar made several observations. The court acknowledged that the case involved the alleged demand and acceptance of a Rs. 20,000/- bribe for reducing disciplinary action charges against the complainant. It noted that during the investigation, Jha’s residence was searched, a mobile phone recovered, and certain documents, including a disciplinary action file, seized. The voice sample of the accused was also collected, and all panchnamas were completed, with statements of some witnesses recorded. These facts led the court to infer that the “material investigation is completed.”
The court further highlighted that the investigating officer had himself sought judicial custody for Jha after a period of police custody, indicating that immediate custodial interrogation was no longer required. While the Ld. SPP expressed apprehension about tampering and hampering the investigation, the court found “nothing brought on record to substantiate the same.” It was also noted that all witnesses in the matter appeared to be public servants, reducing the likelihood of influence. Crucially, the court found “nothing on record to show criminal antecedent against accused.”
Considering these factors, particularly the completion of material investigation, the public servant status of witnesses, and the absence of a criminal record, the court decided that the prosecution’s concerns could be addressed by imposing stringent bail conditions. The Special Judge concluded that discretion could be exercised in granting bail, taking into account the nature of the accusations, the severity of the potential punishment, the nature of the evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the trap.
Consequently, Bail Application No. 227/2023 was allowed. Rajesh Kumar Jha has been ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
- Furnishing a PR Bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one or more sureties of the like amount.
- Furnishing correct details of his permanent/temporary residential address, office address (if any), landline and mobile phone numbers, email IDs, and names of two contact persons with full particulars.
- Submitting an undertaking to inform the court of any future change in address.
- Not leaving India without the prior permission of the court.
- Not tampering with the evidence in the case or influencing any witness.
- Not committing any offense during the period of bail.
- Breach of any of these conditions will lead to the cancellation of bail.
The bail application was accordingly disposed of. The order was signed by Special Judge M.R. Purwar on March 24, 2023, and uploaded on the same day.