Bombay High Court
Manav Satayanaian Jagarwal And Anr vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... on 8 December, 2022
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
:1: 9-i-ia-3577-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3577 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1047 OF 2022
Manav Satayanaian Jagarwal
and another ..... Applicants
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
(at the instance of ACB) and another .... Respondents
-----
Mr. Mahesh Vaswani, Advocate a/w. Ms. Shreya Tiwari, Ms.
Sheetal Patkar, i/b. Dharini N. Nagda, for the Applicants.
Mr. H.S. Venegavkar, Special Counsel a/w. Kamar Ali Shaikh
for the Respondent No.1-CBI.
Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 08th DECEMBER, 2022
P.C. :
1. This is an application for bail pending final
disposal of Criminal Appeal of the applicants.
2. The applicants were the original accused Nos.1 &
2 in CBI Special Case No.48/2018. At the conclusion of trial,
the Special Judge, CBI, Greater Bombay convicted and
sentenced the applicants for commission of the offence
Digitally signed
by
PRADIPKUMAR
PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO 1 of 5
PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE
DESHMANE
Date:
2022.12.13 Deshmane(PS)
12:11:41 +0530
:2: 9-i-ia-3577-22.odt
punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code
read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
they were sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer SI for six months.
They were granted set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C..
3. Heard Shri Mahesh Vaswani, learned counsel for
the applicants, Shri H.S. Venegavkar, learned Special Counsel
the respondent No.1-CBI and Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP
for the respondent No.2-State.
4. The prosecution case is that the complainant was
working as Assistant Commissioner of Customs, R & I, New
Custom Office, Mumbai. His job was to check and verify the
smuggling of goods. On 9.4.2018, he received information
that imported goods in the nature of mobile phone
accessories worth Crores of Rupees were being smuggled.
The tempo carrying those goods was intercepted. It is
alleged that on 10.4.2018, one Rajendra Rajpurohit, who
was relative of the applicant No.1 approached the
complainant for releasing the goods. The applicant No.2
2 of 5
:3: 9-i-ia-3577-22.odt
was a clearing agent. They offered Rs.20 Lakhs as bribe for
releasing the goods. The complainant refused to accept the
bribe. He gave complaint and on 13.4.2018 a trap was laid
and it was conducted in Poonam Restaurant. An amount of
Rs.10 Lakhs was recovered at the time of trap. Both the
Applicants were involved in the efforts to pay the bribe
amount at the time of trap. On this basis, the investigation
was conducted.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the sentence is short and the appeal is not likely to be
decided within that period. The applicants were on bail
during trial and even after their conviction, they were
granted bail under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. He further
submitted that there is discrepancy in describing the actual
trap. The complainant himself has stated that the bribe
amount was kept in LCD box. There was no mention of a
polythene bag. However, PW-2 the pancha and PW-10 the
investigating officer have specifically deposed about the
bribe money being kept in LCD box which was kept in turn
3 of 5
:4: 9-i-ia-3577-22.odt
in a polythene bag. According to learned counsel for the
applicants, this is a serious discrepancy.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants also
emphasized the fact that the aforementioned Rajendra
Rajpurohit is not made an accused and on the other hand he
is examined as a prosecution witness. Even as per the
prosecution case the goods belonged to him and, therefore,
both the applicants were wrongly prosecuted and convicted.
7. Learned Special Counsel for the respondent CBI
opposed this application, though he conceded that the
sentence is short. He submitted that the discrepancy which
is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants is minor
and nothing turns on that discrepancy. The bribe amount
which is recovered is quite huge.
8. I have considered these submissions. Some
arguable points are raised in this appeal which will have to
be considered at the stage of final hearing. The sentence is
short. The appeal is not likely to be decided within that
period. The applicants were on bail during trial. Therefore,
4 of 5
:5: 9-i-ia-3577-22.odt
the applicants can be released on bail. However, considering
seriousness of the allegations and recovery of Rs.10 Lakhs at
the time of conducting trap, I am inclined to issue notice for
enhancement of the sentence to the applicants.
9. Hence, the following order :
:: O R D E R ::
i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.1047/2022, the applicants are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one or two sureties each in the like amount.
ii. Issue notice for enhancement of the sentence on both the applicants, which shall be served at the time of the applicants' executing PR bonds before the trial Court.
iii. With these observations, Interim Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS) 5 of 5