ABA470-21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 470 OF 2021

Avinash s/o Mahadeo Shingate,

Age: 37 Years, Occu: Service,

R/o at Present Near Modern English School,

Gangapur District Aurangabad

Permanent reident of at post Dahifal, Post

Pimpalgaon Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad

...

Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra

...

Respondent

Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate

for the applicant,

Mr. D. R. Kale, P. P. for the State.

CORAM

: V. G. BISHT, J.

DATE

: 11th August, 2021.

ORDER:

1.

This is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 preferred by the applicant seeking grant of pre-arrest

bail in connection with Crime No. 0135/2021, registered with Gangapur

Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under

Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2.

Present applicant, at the relevant time, was serving as

Tahsildar, Gangapur Tahsil. The 7/12 extract in respect of the ancestral

land of the informant mentions names of his parents. There is remark

in the other right column which states that “Transaction illegal as per

the Tenancy Act”. Accordingly, the father of informant made an

Page 1 of 4

ABA470-21

application to the Tahsildar for removal of the said remark from the 7/12

extract. It is alleged that the informant visited the applicant at Tahsil

Office at Gangapur in pursuance of the application made by his father,

upon which the applicant allegedly sent him to accused Ashok Markad,

the concerned Revenue Assistant officer. Accused Ashok Markad, on his

part, allegedly told the informant that instead of paying 50% amount

of the valuation of the said land, he should pay Rs.4.50 lakhs to the

applicant and his work will be done. Upon negotiation, the accused

Ashok Markad asked the informant at least Rs.1.25 lakh will have to be

paid for the work to be done. Later on, the informant lodged complaint

with Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad and after necessary

formalities, a trap was laid and the said accused Ashok Markad came to

be apprehended.

3.

Mr. R. N. Dhorde, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant,

submits that the first information report is totally silent as to the

specific role played by the applicant. There is no allegation that it was

the present applicant who had consented Ashok Markad to accept the

bribe amount from the informant so as to make any favour to him in

respect of the entries in the 7/12 extract. Learned Senior Advocate

invited my attention to certain portion of the say of the Deputy

Superintendent of Anti Corruption Bureau, Aurangabad filed in response

to the bail application of the main accused and the present applicant.

It is mentioned in the say that the complainant/informant had offered

Rs. 70,000/- to the present applicant, to which the latter refused and

Page 2 of 4

ABA470-21

allegedly stated that he would tell after seeing the file. It is then that

the complainant approached the accused Ashok Markad who accepted

Rs.70,000/- in presence of Panch witnesses. Thus, learned Senior

Advocate intended to point out that the applicant was not interested in

taking bribe and in fact had not taken anything from the informant.

Learned Senior Advocate then contended that even otherwise the

custodial interrogation is not necessary inasmuch as, except the alleged

demand, there is neither recovery to be carried out nor such other

material to be recovered so as to suggest that custodial interrogation is

necessary.

4.

Mr. D. R. Kale, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand