Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. According to the prosecution, the principal accused Abdul Karim Telgi was involved in printing and distributing counterfeit stamps/stamp papers on a very large scale, Daring investigation, stamps/stamp papers worth Rs. 2189 crores were seized. The allegation against the appellant was that during the period when the appellant was supervising the investigation, he came into contact with Telgi through his counsel Abdul Rashid Kulkarni (accused No. 49); that the appellant, with a view to help the perpetrators of the organized crime, tried to subvert the investigation; that he was instrumental in ensuring that some persons involved in the crime, were not shown as accused in the first charge-sheet filed on 3.9.2002; that the appellant received a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from accused No. 49, as part payment towards a sum of Rs. 3 crores agreed as illegal gratification to arrange for the deletion of Telgi's relations (wife, daughter and brother) from the charge-sheet and to ensure they were not arrested; and that he was thus a direct recipient of funds from the organized crime syndicate of Telgi for facilitating their unlawful activities.

6. The appellant's application for bail was rejected by the Special Judge, Pune, on 1.7.2004. His subsequent application for bail filed before the Bombay High Court under Section 439 was rejected by the High Court by the impugned order dated 19th/20th October, 2005.

7. The High Court has cited two circumstances to conclude that the appellant was involved in facilitating organized crime and receiving illegal gratification therefore. The said circumstances are:

i) During Ac period when the appellant was associated with the investigation from June, 2002 to 3.9.2002, Counterfeit Stamps worth Rs.1500 crores were recovered on 14.6.2002 from a godown at Bhiwandi taken on rent by one Sirajuddin Kamalsab Nasipudi, an associate of Telgi. The said Nasipudi was not shown as an accused in the first chargesheet filed on 3.9.2002, at the instance of the appellant, though the appellant was aware of the involvement of Nasipudi and was, in fact, on the look out for him.
ii) The statements of witnesses and confessions of some accused show that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs as illegal gratification from Telgi through Abdul Rashid Kulkarni, for not arresting Telgi's wife, daughter and brother and deleting their names from the charge-sheet.

8. The records disclose that Mr. Mushrif (Addl. Commissioner) was in charge of the investigation at the relevant time and he had divided the investigation and connected work among four teams namely i) appraisal of seized papers/documents; ii) examination of computer records and decoding; iii) investigation; and iv) field work. Appellant was placed in the field work team and was not directly involved in investigation. The appellant was not a part of the team that raided the Bhiwandi godown rented by S. K. Nasipudi. It also appears that the decision as to who should be made accused primarily rested with Dy. Commissioner of Police (Zone II) subject to the final decision of the Addl, Commissioner, The Senior Police Prosecutor was also being consulted in the matter, Therefore, apparently, it was not for the appellant to take any decision as to whether S.K. Nasipudi should have been shown as an absconding accused in the first charge-sheet, though it was possible that he gave his suggestion in the matter. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that one possible reason for not including the name of S.K. Nasipudi in the first charge-sheet, was that his full name and address was not available at the time when the first charge-sheet was filed and they were still looking for him. Be that as it may.

9. In regard to the allegation that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs from Telgi through his counsel Mr. A.R. Kulkarni, for deleting/not arresting the family members of Telgi, the material held against the appellant are:

i) The statement of Mr. Mushrif dated 22.11.2002 wherein he had stated that Telgi had told him that Mulani and the Police Inspector Deshmukh had threatened that unless Rs. 3 crores was paid to them, they would arrest his wife, daughter and sick brother; that as he (Telgi) was in custody, negotiations were going on through his counsel A.R. Kulkarni, though whom the demand was made; that Rs. 15 lakhs had already been paid; and that they (Mulani and Deshmukh) had assured that after receipt of the balance, the names of the said family members of Telgi will be deleted from the charge-sheet.