Anticipatory BaiL Shailesh Shivdas Meshram DY RTO, ANDHERI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.956 OF 2011
{For Anticipatory Bail}
Shailesh Shivdas Meshram .... Applicant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
S/Shri Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel
with Subodh Desai i/b V.N. Shingnapurkar
for the Applicant.
Ms P.P. Bhosale, APP, for the State.
CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2011

P.C:

1. This is an application for
anticipatory bail by one Deputy Regional
Transport Officer who is alleged to have
demanded a bribe of `2,000/- for reserving
"MH-02-BQ-7777 and MH-02-BQ-1000" numbers for
vehicles of the complainant Mulla. Mulla
applied for reserving these numbers on
18-10-2011. The Clerk concerned in the
Department mentioned that MH-02-BQ-7777 and
MH-02-BQ-1000 numbers were available. He
endorsed on the relevant applications that
these numbers were available. This endorsement
was made on 19-10-2011.

2. On 20-10-2011, at about 12:30 noon,
Mulla complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau
(for short, ACB ) about demand of extra amount
by the applicant. He also stated that it was
the practice of the applicant to sign the
orders after such extra amount is received by
his agent Kasam, where-after panchas were
called and the complaint was verified before
the panchas. Then the complainant was given a
digital recorder and sent to the office of the
applicant. Conversations of various persons in
that office were recorded on the digital
recorder and it shows that the applicant had
demanded `2,000/-, possibly for allotting each
such number. Mulla is supposed to have agreed
to pay this amount. The applications for
allotment of numbers, which have been seized by
the ACB, show that the applicant had signed
those orders allotting the numbers on
20-10-2011 itself.

3. The applicant's agent Kasam was
trapped accepting a sum of `2,000/- on
3-11-2011. Kasam was remanded to police custody
for a day and was bailed out on 5-11-2011. The
applicant applied before the Sessions Court for
grant of anticipatory bail but his application
was rejected by the order dated 17-11-2011.
This is why the applicant is before this Court.

4. The learned senior counsel for the
applicant submitted that the applicant has
possibly been falsely implicated because he had
initiated action against several motor driving
schools. He submitted that after the applicant
had endorsed on the relevant applications
orders for allotment of the concerned
registration numbers, there was no question of
the applicant demanding bribe from the person
concerned.

5. The learned APP is right in submitting
that the demand itself was made on 20-10-2011
and the endorsements could have been made after
the person concerned agreed to pay the bribe.
All the same, the learned APP, with
instructions from Dinesh Katke, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, ACB, Mumbai, could not
give any reason why the applicant's being in
custody for the purpose of investigation is
necessary. The offence is one of trap of an
agent while receiving bribe. It is not alleged
at this stage that any investigation into the
assets of the applicant is to be carried out.

In a trap case it is not clear as to what
further evidence is to be collected.
Confronting the applicant with other persons
present in his chamber does not require the
applicant's being in custody. Even if it is
presumed that the applicant did demand the
bribe amount and Kasam accepted the amount at
the applicant's instance, it is not clear as to
why the applicant need to be in custody. Sample
of voice of the applicant can be taken even
without his being in custody. Though the
conduct of the applicant may be bad enough, it
was worst still that the investigating agency
could not think of one good reason for having
the applicant in custody, except those
discussed above.

6. In view of the above, in the event of
the applicant s arrest in C.R. No.42 of 2011
being investigated by ACB, Mumbai, the
applicant be released on bail on his furnishing
P.R. Bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with one or
more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to
`1,00,000/- on the condition that the applicant
shall report at the office of the ACB initially
on 25-11-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation
and thereafter as and when required by the I.O.
for a period of one month. The applicant shall
5 ABA-956.11
not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer and he shall
not leave the country without the prior
permission of the trial Court.

7. This order shall remain in force till
the trial is over with the only stipulation
that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may
furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in
view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC
312.

8. The application accordingly stands
disposed of.

(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)