Bombay High Court
Raj Relu Gehani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 26 October, 2018
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1 of 6 909.BA.2672.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2672 OF 2018
Raj Relu Gehani, Age 59 years,
Occ.Service, R/o.A-202, 2nd Floor,
Jay Apartment, Near Vihar Hotel,
Nehru Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 055. Applicant
(Presently lodged at Arthur Road Jail)
versus
The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents
Dr.Sujay Kantawala with Mr.Yogesh Rohira and Ms.Aishwarya
Kantawala I/by Mr.Yogesh Rohira for applicant.
Ms.A.A.Takalkar, APP, for State.
Ms.Ameeta Kuttikrishnan for CBI.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 26th October 2018
PC :
1. This is an application for bail in connection with CR
No.RCBAI/2018/A022-CBI-ACB (RA No.922 of 2018) registered
under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The case of prosecution is that a written complaint was
received on 25th September 2018 by Superintendent of Police, CBI,
ACB, Mumbai from Mr.Mahesh Balchandra Gaokar working with
M/s.Jai Ambe and Ganesh Exports, Mumbai against applicant who
was working as Assistant Commissioner of Customs and one Sadguru
Sharan Upadhyay-the Appraising Officer of Customs, who were
posted at Group 5B appraising at Sahar Cargo Complex, alleging
demand of illegal gratification for allowing clearance of the import
consignment. The said firm deals in imports of automobile spare
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:52 :::
2 of 6 909.BA.2672.2018.doc
parts and fabrics. On 21 st September 2018 the firm had filed
customs bill of entry dated 21st September 2018 consisting of
automobile spare parts of Steering and Radiator Fans assembly from
Prague port by Air to arrive at Sahar Cargo Complex for customs
clearance. On 22nd September 2018, the complainant had
approached the Appraising Officer Mr.Upadhyay, who had
demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- for appraising the bill of entry.
However, he was paid Rs.4,000/-. It is further alleged that on 24 th
September 2018 the complainant's office shocked to see the status
screen pending with the Assistant Commissioner, Group 5
(applicant herein), he approached the applicant and requested to
finally assess the bill of entry in question for which demand of
Rs.2,000/- was made. He was informed that Rs.4,000/- was paid to
Mr.Upadhyay. However, the accused insisted for payment of
Rs.2,000/- for assessment and clearance of the imported
consignment. Hence, the complaint was lodged.
3. Subsequently a trap was laid by CBI, Mumbai and the
applicant was apprehended while demanding and allegedly
accepting illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- for final assessment and
clearance of bill of entry in respect of imported consignment on 25 th
September 2018. The applicant was shown arrested on 25 th
September 2018.
4. The applicant preferred application for bail before Special
Judge for CBI which has been rejected on 5th October 2018.
5. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant is
serving as Assistant Commissioner of Customs since several years.
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:52 :::
3 of 6 909.BA.2672.2018.doc
On account of his arrest he has been suspended. It is further
submitted that the applicant is arrested on 25th September 2018 and
since then he is in custody. Presently he is in judicial custody and
further detention of the applicant is not necessary. It is submitted
that after his arrest he was produced before appropriate Court for
remand on 26th September 2018 and was initially remanded to police
custody. However, subsequently the Court declined to extend police
custody and he was remanded to judicial custody on 29 th September
2018. It is submitted that he is in custody and he has been
interrogated. The prosecution is relying on recovery of Rs.10,000/-
and Rs.8,505/- which was purportedly recovered from his office and
the documents in relation to investment and cash amount of Rs.11
lakh from his residence. It is submitted that the prosecution has not
established any link of said documents/investment or cash in the
present crime. The prosecution has not initiated any proceedings
u/s 13(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant is in
custody in relation to the offence u/s 7 of the Act. There is no
evidence of any conspiracy as alleged by the prosecution and he has
been subjected to custody from the date of arrest. The co-accused
who has allegedly accepted Rs.4,000/- has not been arrested by the
investigating machinery. It is submitted that taking into
consideration the prosecution case as it is, for the offence for which
the applicant has been charged, he may not be subjected to further
detention. It is therefore prayed that bail may be granted to the
applicant.
6. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the applicant
was arrested while accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/-. The applicant is
involved in offence u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:52 :::
4 of 6 909.BA.2672.2018.doc
investigation is in progress. During the course of investigation the
cash amount, as stated above, has been recovered from the office of
applicant and Cash of Rs.11 lakh and other investment documents
were also recovered from his house. The investigation in relation to
the said recovery is in progress. The applicant may tamper with
evidence in the event he is granted bail. It is submitted that the
applicant has committed grave offence under the said Act and
investigation is at the crucial stage. Therefore, bail may not be
granted.
7. I have perused the documents which are annexed to the
application and the reply filed by prosecution opposing grant of bail.
The applicant was allegedly found accepting Rs.2,000/- on 25 th
September 2018. He was arrested on that day and was produced
before the competent Court on 26 th September 2018. On perusal of
the remand application dated 26th September 2018 it is apparent that
the grounds for remand were to confront the arrested accused person
with the incriminating evidence/documents collected during trap
proceedings. The voice samples of the accused persons were to be
recorded. The accused is required to be interrogated regarding the
modus operandi of accepting the bribe and investigation is required
to be done in relation to recovery of cash of Rs.10,000/- and
Rs.8,505/- from his cabin. It is further stated that the applicant is
required to be interrogated for involvement of any other official of
ACC Sahar Mumbai as daily hundreds of bills of entry are filed and
which indicates bigger corruption. It is also stated that house search
was carried out at his residence and various investment documents
were seized. In that regard the accused has to be confronted with
the seized incriminating documents. Learned Special Judge
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:52 :::
5 of 6 909.BA.2672.2018.doc
remanded the applicant to police custody for three days. It is
pertinent to note that on the next date of remand he was produced
on 29th September 2018 and the investigating machinery had sought
his police custody. I have perused the remand application dated 29 th
September 2018. The grounds for remand were to conduct inquiry
in relation to documents, immovable and movable properties etc.
The grounds for remand which were submitted in the first remand
application were also reiterated in the second remand application. It
is pertinent to note that the Court while passing the order on the
second remand application had refused to extend police custody. On
perusal of the order dated 29th September 2018 it is apparent that
the Court has granted magisterial custody remand till 12 th October
2018. It was observed by the Court that the grounds cited seeking
extension of police custody would further reveals that the
investigating officer intended to confront the accused regarding
several bank accounts opened by the accused and his family
members regarding investment of huge amounts in FDR which is
certainly a subject matter of independent investigation , if a case is
registered under the provisions of Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act, which
is not yet done. On all aforesaid counts further PC of applicant is not
justified. Therefore, it is apparent that police custody was refused by
the Court while remanding the applicant when he was produced for
remand on 29th September 2018. The case is proceeded on the
allegation that applicant has accepted Rs.2,000/- towards bribe. The
investigation has proceeded. Presently the applicant is prosecuted
for offence u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120B
of Indian Penal Code. The documents are already collected by
police. There is no prosecution or charge presently u/s 13(1)(e) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. Taking into consideration the
::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:52 :::
6 of 6 909.BA.2672.2018.doc
aforesaid aspects, further detention of applicant is not necessary and
he is entitled to be released on bail.
8. Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The applicant be released on bail in connection with CR No. RCBAI/2018/A022-CBI-ACB (RA No.922 of 2018) on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(ii) The applicant shall report the investigating officer, CBI, ACB once in a week on every Friday between 10 am and 12 noon for a period of one month, and thereafter as and when called for;
(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence;
(iv) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash security of Rs.25,000/- for a period of four weeks;
(v) Criminal Bail Application No.2672 of 2018 is disposed off.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST ::: Uploaded on - 01/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2018 23:35:52 :::