Allowed

Satish Sambhaji Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Nov 2024BA/4610/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by an accused arrested after a successful raid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found no disproportionate assets case registered and no reason for further custody after one and a half months' incarceration, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs. 50,000 with one/two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including restrictions on movement, no tampering, and ACB attendance.

Satish Sambhaji Kadam vs the State of Maharashtra — Corruption | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

902-ba-4610-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 4610 OF 2024

¶5

Satish Sambhaji Kadam ... Applicant

¶6

V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/b. Harshad Sathe, Savrabh Butala and Mansi Sharma, for the applicant.

¶8

Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP, for the Respondent / State.

¶9

Mr. Asif Chaware, for the first informant.

¶10

Mr. Krishna Baban Mekhale, PI, ACB, Mumbai.

¶11

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD

¶12

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date: 2024.11.27 18:19:31 +0530

¶13

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

¶14

DATE : 27TH NOVEMBER, 2024.

¶15

PC:

¶16

Heard.

¶17

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.0353 of 2024, registered with Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai (NRI, Sagari police station) Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶18

The offence is registered under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act after a successful raid conducted by the respondent.

1 of 4

varsha

902-ba-4610-2024.doc

The application is being opposed by the learned APP on the ground that the applicant has accumulated various properties which are disproportionate to his income.

¶23

Further, the learned counsel for the informant opposed the application on the ground that he may tamper with the prosecution evidence or pressurise the complainant.

¶24

Having gone through the FIR and the allegations made against the applicant it is evident that there is no offence registered against the applicant as regards the accumulation of disproportionate assets.

¶25

The offence as I have observed is under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The raid was successful and during the raid necessary material has been collected by the Investigating Agency. Thus, considering that the applicant is in jail from last one and half month, I do not find any reason for further custody of the applicant.

¶26

In the circumstances, though the learned APP and the learned counsel for the informant have strongly opposed the application, I pass the following order:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i) Criminal application is allowed;

¶29

ii) It is directed that the applicant be released on bail in connection with Crime No.0353 of 2024, registered with Anti-Corruption Bureau, (NRI, Sagari police station) Navi Mumbai for the offences punishable under Section 7

2 of 4

varsha

902-ba-4610-2024.doc

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on furnishing P.R.Bond of Rupees Fifty Thousand with one/ two solvent sureties in the like amount;

¶34

iii) The applicant shall not enter into territorial jurisdiction of NRI, Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai till filing of the charge-sheet;

¶35

iv) The applicant shall provide his address alongwith mobile number to the IO;

¶36

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also not tamper with the evidence;

¶37

vi) Liberty is granted to the State to apply for cancellation of bail in case of any breach of condition or misuse of liberty.

¶38

vii) The applicant shall attend the office of AntiCorruption Bureau, (NRI, Sagari police station) Navi Mumbai as and when his attendance is required.

¶39

viii) The Investigating Agency shall issue notice of 24 hours, whenever the presence of the applicant is necessary.

¶40

ix) The applicant shall attend the trial before the trial Court regularly on every date unless exemption is granted by the trial Court.

3 of 4

varsha

902-ba-4610-2024.doc

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

¶45

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

¶46

4 of 4

¶47

varsha

Satish Sambhaji Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Sambhaji Kadam 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Godfrey Peter Dcunha vs the State of Maharashtra

Aashif Gafur Majawar vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yash @ Varun Samarsinh Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Avinash Milind Sonwane vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mantu Shambhu Mandal vs Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu and Anr.

Sukanta Ranjit Bhowmik vs State of Maharashtra