Allowed

Satish Saudagar Kshirsagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2021ABA/365/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a corruption case involving allegations of bribery against a Registrar. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the bribe was not paid and directed the applicant to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties upon arrest; directed to attend police station and cooperate with investigation.

Satish Saudagar Kshirsagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

7-ABA-365-2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 365 OF 2020

¶4

Satish Saudagar Kshirsagar .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, for the applicant. Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE :15^th FEBRUARY 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

The Applicant is seeking Anticipatory Bail in

¶9

connection with C.R. No. 38 of 2020, registered at Bundgarden Police Station, Pune under Section 7 and 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶10

Heard Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. S.H. Yadav, learned APP for the State.

¶11

The FIR is lodged on 21/1/2020 by one Bhagwan Tangade. The informant had taken loan from

y.s.patil

1 of 5

7-ABA-365-2020.odt

one Bhimrao Ardand. The informant’s land was mortgaged with the money lender. Even after the principal amount and interest were returned, the land was not re-transferred in the name of the informant. The informant had therefore, approached Additional Registrar for Co-operative Societies. A Revision Application was pending before the concerned authority Dr. Anand Jogdand. It is mentioned in the FIR that, said Jogdand demanded Rs. 1 lakh each from the two victim for passing orders in their favour. He had directed the victims to meet his subordinate Mr. Zine. Thereafter, the informant approached Anti Corruption Bureau and lodged his complaint. A trap was arranged for verifcation of the demand. According to the frst informant, one Gite telephonically told the informant that since the informant had not paid money, he had prepared an order against him and kept it for the signature of Jogdand. In the meantime, the informant met the present applicant who had in the past passed some order in his favour. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant told the informant

y.s.patil

2 of 5

7-ABA-365-2020.odt

that he was close to Jogdand and he could get his work done. The informant was told that he will have to spend Rs. 1 lakh for that. This conversation was recorded through audio recorder. Thereafter, nothing further took place but the FIR was lodged. Actually, the money was not paid nor was it accepted by any accused. But even then the FIR came to be lodged.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the alleged conversation had taken place in January 2020. The applicant has co-operated with the investigation. He had nothing to do with passing or rejecting the order. It was not his job. The allegations against him are not based on factual position.

¶21

Learned APP on instructions stated that the applicant has given voice sample for testing. He submitted that the conversation shows the applicant’s involvement in this case. Learned APP on instructions makes a statement that Jogdand is not made an accused.

y.s.patil

3 of 5

7-ABA-365-2020.odt

I have considered these submissions. Admittedly the main allegations are directed against one Jogdand and his other subordinates Zine and Gite. The applicant’s role is described in later part of the FIR and even there he does not appear to be the main culprit. There was no prior discussion between the applicant and Jogdand in respect of informant’s work,

¶26

In this view of the matter, since the bribe was not actually paid or accepted, at this stage, the applicant’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. The applicant has already given his voice sample. He can be directed to co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶27

Hence, the following order :

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 38 of 2020 registered with Bundgarden Police Station, District Pune, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like

y.s.patil

4 of 5

7-ABA-365-2020.odt

amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶35

(iii) The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶37

y.s.patil

¶38

5 of 5

Satish Saudagar Kshirsagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Saudagar Kshirsagar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhijit Ramesh Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Suresh Ghadi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandipan Devrao Kharat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kaif Afzal Sorathia Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jakir Bandenawaj Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Suhas Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.