Pravin Laxman Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Corruption | Bombay HC (2024)

Pravin Laxman Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Corruption | Bombay HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, who apprehends arrest in C.R. No.40/2024 (Gondi Police Station) under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, i.e., whether his custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation.

Court's answer

Prima facie material shows the complicity of the applicant in demanding the bribe: the demand was recorded on a voice recorder, verification of the demand was done, and the transcript of the recorded conversation confirms the demand made by the applicant in the name of the Tahsildar.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant's contention that he has no concern with the Revenue Department (being from the Supply Department) has no substance: by order dated 05/12/2023 the Tahsildar constituted a six-member flying squad headed by the Nayab Tahsildar (Revenue-1), and the applicant is a member of that squad, in whose head's name he demanded the bribe.

Key takeaways

Considering the gravity of the accusations and the applicant's complicity, his custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation, particularly since the identity and whereabouts of a person accompanying the applicant at the raid are known only to him.ratio¶¶25
The applicant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail, and the anticipatory bail application is rejected.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 285 of 2024 (Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Nitin B. Suryawanshi, J.; decided 14 March 2024): Application of Pravin Laxman Pawar for anticipatory bail in C.R. No.40/2024 of Gondi Police Station, Dist. Jalna (Sections 7 and 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) rejected. FIR by Santosh Sakharam Kamble alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- bribe for release of his intercepted vehicle; the demand was voice-recorded, verified and transcribed, confirming prima facie complicity. The court found unsubstantiated the applicant's claim of no connection with the Revenue Department, since he was a member of the six-member flying squad constituted by the Tahsildar's order dated 05/12/2023, headed by the Nayab Tahsildar (Revenue-1) in whose name the bribe was demanded. Holding custodial interrogation necessary — notably to trace a companion whose identity was known only to the applicant — the court declined the discretionary relief and rejected the application. Neutral citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:5809.

2024:BHC-AUG:5809

1 901-ABA-285-24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 285 OF 2024

PRAVIN LAXMAN PAWAR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Mr. A.B. Kharosekar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. A.R. Kale, APP for Respondents/State

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE : 14^th MARCH, 2024

PER COURT :

Applicant apprehends arrest in C.R. No.40/2024, registered with Gondi Police Station, Dist. Jalna, for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

FIR is lodged by Santosh Sakharam Kamble alleging that applicant demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- for releasing his vehicle intercepted by Tahsildar and present applicant. When informant went to the spot where vehicle was intercepted and requested applicant to leave his vehicle without taking any action, applicant demanded amount of Rs.50,000/- as a bribe.

Heard learned advocate for applicant and learned APP for respondents/State. Perused the investigation papers.

Learned advocate for applicant submits that there is five

SVH

2 901-ABA-285-24.odt

days delay in lodging the FIR. Applicant works in Supply Department and he has nothing to do with Revenue Department. He is falsely implicated in present crime. Voice recorder in which demand of bribe is recorded, is already seized and therefore, custodial interrogation of applicant is not necessary. Applicant being Government Servant is not likely to abscond if released on bail.

Learned APP opposed the application contending that there is prima facie material on record to show the complicity of applicant in present crime. Custody of applicant is necessary for effective investigation.

Perusal of record indicates that after informant agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- bribe, his vehicle No.MH-21-BH-5938 was released by applicant without taking any action. Applicant appears to have demanded bribe amount in the name of Tahsildar. Demand of bribe made by applicant is recorded in voice recorder. Verification of demand is done. Transcript of recorded conversation confirms demand made by applicant. Thus, prima facie there is material showing complicity of applicant in demanding bribe in the name of Tahsildar. Therefore, the contention that three ofÏces of illegal excavation of sand are registered against informant, is of no help to the case of applicant.

By order dated 05/12/2023, Tahsildar has constituted

SVH

3 901-ABA-285-24.odt

flying squad to take action against illegal transportation of sand and other minor minerals. Applicant is a member of six members squad headed by Nayab Tahsildar (Revenue-1), in whose name he has demanded the bribe amount. Thus, there is no substance in contention of applicant that he has no concern with Revenue Department as he belongs to Supply Department. It is necessary to mention here that applicant is appointed on compassionate ground as a clerk-cum-typist at Tahsildar OfÏce, Ambad, on 20^th March, 2023 and within less than one year of appointment applicant has indulged in commission of serious offence of demanding bribe.

At the time of raid, one person was accompanying applicant, whose identity and whereabouts are known only to the applicant. Considering the gravity of accusations and complicity of applicant in the present crime, for effective investigation his custodial interrogation is necessary. He is, therefore, not entitled for discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. In the result, application is rejected.

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

SVH