Raju Dhondiram Akrupe vs the State of Maharashtra

11-aba-1237-24.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1237 OF 2024

¶3

Raju D. Akrupe …Applicant V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra

¶5

...Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Nilesh Navale for the Applicant. Mr. B.V. Holambe Patil, APP for the Respondent/State. PI Ruali Pol, ACB Thane Unit, Chitalsar Police Station is present.

¶7

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 19.01.2026.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.441 of 2024 registered at Chitalsar Manpada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶11

This Court on 7^th May 2024 passed the following order: “1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State.

¶12

2. This application is preferred seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 441 of 2024, registered at Chitalsar Manpada police station, Thane City for the offences punishable under sections 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶13

3. The applicant is a Food Safety Officer. The applicant had conducted a raid in the premises of first informant, as it

1/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

11-aba-1237-24.doc

was alleged that the first informant had stored contraband articles i.e .Gutkha. After the raid, the applicant sealed the shop of the first informant. After the Court of Session ordered de-sealing of the shop premises, the applicant had allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/-. The first informant alleged that Roshan Modi (accused No. 2) had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for the applicant. Roshan Modi was apprehended while accepting the said bribe. The applicant had thus abetted the offence.

¶18

4. Mr. Mohite, the learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that though thrice verification of the demand was conducted, at no point of time the applicant had made the demand. There is no direct evidence of any demand ever been made by the applicant. Only, on the basis of a vague telephonic conversation between the applicant and the co-accused No. 2, the applicant is sought to be roped in.

¶19

5. Mr. Jadhav, the learned APP resisted the prayer for pre arrest bail. It was submitted that the transcript of the conversation indicates that the applicant had sealed a number of shops and those shop owners were also made to pay bribe.

¶20

6. I have perused the transcript of the conversation between the applicant and the Roshan Modi. Prima facie, at this stage, the accusation that the applicant had abetted the commission of the ofence of cof -accused appears to be inferential. There does not seem to be any direct demand made by the applicant to the frst informant.i

¶21

7. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am inclined to protect the liberty of the applicant while directing him to join in the investigation.

¶22

8. In the event of arrest in C.R. No. 441 of 2024 registered at Chitalsar Manpada police station, Thane the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount.

2/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

11-aba-1237-24.doc

9. The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and attend ACB, Thane on 14th 15th and 16th May, 2024 between 10 am to 1 pm and, thereafter, as and when directed till the next date.

¶27

10. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement to first informant, any of the prosecution witnesses or any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶28

Stand over to 19^th June, 2024.”

¶29

Learned APP for the respondent/State, on instructions, submits that the applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer as directed by this Court. It is submitted that the investigation is over.

¶30

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the interim order dated 7^th May 2024 passed by this Court granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant is hereby confirmed.

¶31

The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶32

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶33

3/3

¶34

Dinesh S. Sherla

Raju Dhondiram Akrupe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Dhondiram Akrupe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Khalil Ashraf Surve vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Vishwanath Dahale and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra

Dipak R Kushwaha and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Jignesh Ashokbhai Lumbhani vs Devangi Jignesh Lumbani and Anr.

Aditya Sudhir Rangnekar vs Shweta Aditya Rangnekar

Shivani Varma vs State of Maharashtra