Mumbai, Maharashtra | October 24, 2018 – The Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Shri S.V. Yarlagadda (Court Room No. 54), granted conditional bail to Sudhir Mansaram Bhalerao, a 46-year-old Assistant Accounts Officer, who was arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in connection with a bribery case. The order, pronounced on October 24, 2018, pertains to Bail Application No. 756 of 2018, arising from Remand Application No. 998 of 2018 (Crime No. 30 of 2018 of ACB).

The case originated from a complaint filed by Omprakash, a retired senior clerk from M.D. College, under the office of the Deputy Director, Higher Education, Mumbai. The applicant, Sudhir Bhalerao, was working in the same office and was responsible for processing Omprakash’s leave encashment. According to the complaint, despite repeated visits to both M.D. College and the applicant’s office, Omprakash’s payment was delayed. Another accused, Ajay Rane, the Registrar of M.D. College, allegedly informed Omprakash that the applicant would expedite his work in exchange for a bribe of ₹5,000/-. After negotiations, the demand reportedly increased to ₹12,000/-.

Omprakash lodged a complaint with the ACB on July 21, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the ACB laid a trap and caught Ajay Rane red-handed accepting ₹15,000/- from the informant. Subsequently, Ajay Rane made a phone call to the applicant informing him of the acceptance, to which the applicant allegedly “okayed the deal.” Following these events, the ACB arrested both the applicant and Ajay Rane on the night of October 15, 2018. The applicant was then placed in judicial custody, leading to his bail application.

The prosecution opposed the bail, arguing that the offences were serious, and the applicant might tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses. The investigating officer cited the preliminary stage of the investigation and the possibility of the applicant obstructing it and not cooperating after release. The prosecution also noted that the recording of some witnesses’ statements was still incomplete.

Mr. Vijay K. Shelar, the learned Advocate for the applicant, argued that his client was a public servant with a permanent address and was the sole earning member of his family. He pointed out that the house search of the applicant yielded no incriminating material and assured the court that the applicant would not interfere with witnesses or the course of justice. The alleged bribe amount had already been recovered, and the applicant was already in judicial custody, with most of the investigation completed. Furthermore, the applicant was a diabetic patient and was ready to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

Special Judge Shri S.V. Yarlagadda, after considering the material collected by the investigating officer, found prima facie evidence indicating the applicant’s involvement in the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While acknowledging the seriousness of demanding a bribe, the court also noted that it was not an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment. The court recognized the vulnerability of the informant and other prosecution witnesses to the influence of a public servant accused if released on bail, especially with some witness statements yet to be recorded. To mitigate this risk, the court proposed imposing a condition of depositing a cash surety.

The court also took into account that the trap proceedings were completed, and the bribe amount was recovered, suggesting that the crucial part of collecting material evidence was done. To balance the need for further investigation and prevent potential interference, the court decided to direct the applicant to attend the ACB office twice a week for six weeks, in addition to being available for interrogation when required by the Investigating Officer (IO). Finding no other significant grounds to oppose the bail under these circumstances, the court was inclined to grant conditional bail.

FINAL ORDER

(1) The Bail application is allowed.

(2) The applicant shall be released on the following terms and conditions:

(i) The applicant shall execute a PR Bond of ₹50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties or a cash surety of ₹25,000/-.

(ii) The applicant shall not repeat such offence 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 so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the police officer or to the Court. He shall deposit an additional cash surety of ₹25,000/- and in the event of a breach of this condition, the said amount shall be liable to be forfeited, in addition to other liabilities including cancellation of bail.

(iii) The applicant shall attend the ACB office from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. every Wednesday and Friday for a period of six weeks from the date of his release.

(iv) The Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the IO as and when required.

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

The bail application was disposed of accordingly.

The order, dictated and pronounced in open court on October 24, 2018, and signed on October 25, 2018, reflects the court’s balanced approach in considering the seriousness of corruption charges while also taking into account the stage of the investigation, the recovery of the bribe money, and the need to ensure the accused’s cooperation without unduly restricting his liberty, provided appropriate safeguards are in place. The conditions imposed aim to prevent any interference with the ongoing investigation and ensure the applicant’s availability for further proceedings.