Bombay High Court
Sarjerao Sakharam Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 October, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 5 06-ia-3272-22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3272 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2022
Sarjerao Sakharam Shinde ..Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil i/b. Saili Dhuru for Appellant.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 3rd OCTOBER 2022
PC :
1. The Applicant was convicted by learned Special Judge
(ACB), Solapur vide his Judgment and order dated 16/09/2022
passed in Special (ACB) Case No.4 of 2018. He was convicted for
commission of offence punishable U/s.7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (for short 'P.C. Act) and was sentenced to suffer R.I.
for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of
payment of fine to suffer S.I. for 2 months. He was also convicted
for commission of offence punishable U/s.13(1)(d) r/w. Section
Digitally 13(2) of P. C. Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2022.10.06
10:52:21
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 5 06-ia-3272-22
to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for 3
months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case is that the complainant was an
accused in a case U/s.395 of I.P.C. He was granted anticipatory bail
and formalities of the bail conditions were to be completed by the
present Applicant. The complainant also requested for deleting
serious sections. For that purpose the applicant had demanded
bribe amount of Rs.20000/-. A trap was arranged. It is the
prosecution case that, it was successful. The complainant paid that
amount to the applicant. The raiding party caught the Applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, there
is material contradiction between the evidence of the complainant
and the pancha who were supposed to be present together at the
time of trap dated 20/07/2017. He submitted that the Appellant
was on bail during trial and he has not misused the same. The
credentials of the complainant are obviously doubtful as he is an
accused in a serious offence.
4. Learned APP opposed this application. He submitted that
3 of 5 06-ia-3272-22
the offence is serious and the sentence awarded is for 5 years. He
further submitted that the contradiction is minor and it does not
go to the root of the case. His demand was true.
5. I have considered these submissions. The sentence
awarded in this case is for five years as rigorous punishment. The
appeal is not likely to be decided during that period. The Applicant
was on bail during trial and there was no allegation that he had
misused the liberty. In any case, as of today he is suspended from
his services, as submitted by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. So far as, merits of the matter is concerned, there is
substance in the submission of learned counsel for the Applicant
that, there is important and material contradiction during evidence
of the complainant and pancha. The complainant was examined as
PW-1 about the actual events taking place during the trap. He has
deposed, that he along with pancha Gade went to the house of
Appellant. Then the appellant asked whether PW-1 had brought
gratification amount of Rs.20000/-. He removed it from the pocket
and as is directed by the applicant, kept it in a black bag in his
4 of 5 06-ia-3272-22
house. After that, he gave signal to Gade to go out of the house.
The pancha Gade signaled to Devkar who was present with raiding
party. Thereafter, Devkar and his staff came inside the house and
completed other procedure. Whereas, pancha PW-2 Atul Gade has
deposed that the appellant and the complainant were discussing
about deleting some sections in the crime. The applicant told PW-2
to wait outside. PW-2 came outside the house. After some time,
PW-1 came outside the house and gave signal about applicant
having accepted the bribe amount. These two versions are directly
contrary and both of them cannot be true at the same time.
Therefore, on the merits, there are arguable points in favour of the
applicant. Taking over all view of the submissions, the applicant
deserves to be released on bail.
7. Hence, the order:
ORDER
a) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.971 of 2022, the applicant is directed
to be released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond
5 of 5 06-ia-3272-22
in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one or two
sureties in the like amount.
b) The Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
