Allowed

Sardar Kerba Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Mar 2021ABA/481/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing prosecution for corruption offences. Finding the allegations vague and lacking specific incriminating material, the court ordered release on bond with direction to cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release on bail if arrested, upon furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with sureties, and direction to cooperate with the investigation.

Sardar Kerba Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

23-ABA-481-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 481 OF 2021

¶4

Sardar Kerba Kamble .... Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
______

¶5

Mr. Nikhilesh Pote, for the applicant.
Smt. J.S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:25th MARCH, 2021

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

1.The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No. 20 of 2021 registered at Bundgarden Police Station,

¶9

Pune under sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.

¶10

2. Heard Mr. Nikhilesh Pote, learned counsel for the

¶11

applicant and Smt. J.S. Lohokare, learned APP for the State.

y.s.patil

1 of 5

23-ABA-481-2021.odt

3.The FIR is lodged by one Yashwant Shinde. He was
appointed for three years by the Commissioner of Co-operative
Society for conducting audit. There were certain allegations
against the first informant and his name was to be deleted from
the panel. The informant wanted continuation of his appointment.
It is his case that one Tanaji Kavade and Lalitkumar Bhavsar who
were working as Additional Registrar and Special Auditor for co-
operative societies respectively, demanded Rs. 50,000/- for
continuing of the informant’s name on the panel. It is alleged that
the informant approached Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune, to make
complaint about this demand. During verification of this demand,
certain conversations were recorded. In those conversations,
applicant’s name figured. It is alleged that the applicant had
instigated or encouraged the informant to pay bribe. On this basis
the FIR was lodged.

¶16

4.Shri Pote, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted
that there is no demand or acceptance on the part of the present
applicant. The applicant was only representing his department in

y.s.patil

2 of 5

23-ABA-481-2021.odt

the inquiry proceedings. He does not have any power to grant
any favour to the first informant. The informant himself had
committed fraud and therefore he is not a reliable person. He
submitted that the applicant had not even told the informant to
pay bribe to a particular officer. The applicant is unnecessarily
shown as an accused and his custodial interrogation is not
necessary.

¶21

5. Learned APP produced investigation papers before me. She has produced transcription of the conversations.

¶22

6.I have considered these submissions. I have perused
that transcript. It features, the informant, one Sarode and the
present applicant. As far as Sarode is concerned, there are certain
incriminating conversations. But as far as the present applicant is
concerned, his conversations are quite vague. There is no specific
sentence or utterance on his part which could be positively
interpreted to mean that he had encouraged or instigated the first
informant to pay the bribe. The main accused Bhavsar was caught

y.s.patil

3 of 5

23-ABA-481-2021.odt

accepting bribe amount. The applicant had neither demanded or
accepted bribe. The allegations and material against the present
applicant are quite vague. Therefore, at this stage, the
investigating agency does not have sufficient material against the
present applicant warranting his custodial interrogation. The
applicant can be directed to attend the concerned investigating
agency and to co-operate with the investigation.

¶27

7. Hence, the following order :

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.
No. 20 of 2021 registered with Bundgarden
Police Station, 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
amount.

¶30

(ii)The applicant shall attend Office of the
concerned investigating agency as and when
called and shall co-operate with the

y.s.patil

4 of 5

23-ABA-481-2021.odt

investigation.

¶35

(ii)The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶36

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶37

y.s.patil

¶38

5 of 5

Sardar Kerba Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Kerba Kamble v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Sandip Narayan Kank Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil @ Dongraya Hanumant Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suryakant Abhimanyu Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vignesh Battule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Dayanan Kole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tukaram Vithoba Kute Vs the State of Maharashtra