[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 751 OF 2007

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 751 OF 2007

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 751 OF 2007

Vijay Maruti Kamble ..Applicant

V/s

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent.

Mr., Advocate for the applicant.

Mr., APP for the State.

CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J.

CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J.

CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J.

DATE : 8TH MARCH, 2007.

DATE : 8TH MARCH, 2007.

DATE : 8TH MARCH, 2007.

P.C.

. Applicant Vijay Kamble, who is working as a

Junior Engineer with Mumbai Municipal Corporation,

Mumbai, seeks anticipatory bail in Crime N0. 11/2007,

registered by Anti Corruption Bureau. Worli, Mumbai,

under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Heard Mr. Kocharekar, learned Counsel for the applicant

and Mr. Nikam, learned APP. Perused the relevant

documents. As per the report lodged by one Laxmikant

with Anti Corruption Bureau on 29/1/2007, he is

constructing a house. However, one Chandrakant Kamble,

who is a Mukadam or Supervisor working in P North Ward,

approached him and told him that he is making a

construction without obtaining necessary permission and

[2]

the construction could be demolished. However, he told

him that if he wanted to save the construction, he

should pay Rs. 1 Lakh. This talk took place on mobile

phone on 28/1/2007. The complainant expressed his

difficulty to pay Rs. 1 lakh. Then said Chandrakant

Kamble told the complainant that he was making the

demand on behalf of the Junior Engineer, Mr. Kamble

i.e. the present applicant and the amount could be

reduced only by Junior Engineer Kamble. Finally, on

mobile itself, 29/1/2007 at 10 a.m. it was decided that

a meeting be held in the Hotel Ashray, liberty Garden,

Malad. Accordingly, at 12.45 the complainant went to

the said hotel. He found that Chandrakant Kamble was

not present. Therefore, he contacted him on mobile and

as instructed, the complainant went to hotel Ashok.

When the complainant reached there, Chandrakant Kamble

and present applicant both were present. The present

applicant was introduced by Chandrakant Kamble and

thereafter the present applicant made a demand or Rs. 1

Lakh. After complainant showed his inability to pay

that much amount, the present applicant agreed to accept

amount of Rs. 40,000/-. He also told the complainant

to make the payment within two hours. Chandrakant

Kamble also nodded and showed his approval to this

[3]

proposal. After this talk, the complainant approached

the Anti Corruption Bureau. It appears that thereafter

the complainant again contacted Chandrakant Kamble and

agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/-. A trap was arranged and

Chandrakant Kamble accepted the amount of Rs. 25,000/-