Seema Subhash Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra
2022 Latest Caselaw 11105 Bom

                                                         1 of 5                 06-IA-3538-22


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3538 OF 2022
                                                    IN
                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2022

                     Seema Subhash Kamble                                 ..Applicant
                          Versus
                     The State of Maharashtra                             ..Respondent

                                                   __________

                     Mr. Mohsin Khan a/w. Babu Singh a/w. Ramesh Divate a/w.
                     Niranjan Kondyala for Applicant.

                     Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent.
                                                 __________

                                              CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                                              DATE : 19th OCTOBER 2022
                     PC :

                     1.           This is an application for bail pending the hearing and

                     final disposal of Criminal Appeal No.1035 of 2022 preferred by the

                     applicant.


                     2.           The applicant was convicted by learned Additional

                     Sessions Judge, Pune vide his Judgment and order dated

                     22/09/2022 passed in Spl.(ACB) Case No.7 of 2016. The applicant

        Digitally
                     was convicted for commission of offences punishable under
        signed by
        VINOD
VINOD   BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
        2022.10.20
        13:11:36
        +0530
                      Gokhale
                                     2 of 5                  06-IA-3538-22


sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was

sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh

and in default of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for six months.


3.        The prosecution case is that the complainant Nitin

Dhadve was resident of Sarole village, Taluka Bhor, District Pune.

In July 2015 he had purchased 3 Guntha land out of Gat

No.126/1, situate at Sarole village from one Nalawade. On

05/11/2015, he approached the applicant, who was working as

Talathi in the office at Sarole, for taking mutation entry in the

7/12 extract based on his sale deed. The applicant told him that,

she would issue notice for completing the procedure; but she

demanded Rs.2000/- for issuing that notice. The complainant then

approached the Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune. On 16/11/2015,

the complaint was recorded. The verification of demand was made

on the same day in presence of panchas and the trap was laid on

the same day. The accused was found accepting bribe of Rs.1500/-.

The offence was registered. The applicant faced the trial after

investigation.
                                    3 of 5                  06-IA-3538-22


4.        Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, there

is discrepancy in the evidence of the complainant as to exactly for

what purpose the alleged demand was made. On one hand he

deposed that, demand was made for taking mutation entry in 7/12

extract but on the other he had mentioned that the applicant had

demanded money for issuing notice. He submitted that the first

demand is not proved. The defence of the applicant is that, the

complainant had put money in the drawer. He further submitted

that the sentence imposed on the applicant is too harsh. The

applicant was on bail during trial. She is a lady and, therefore, she

deserves to be released on bail in the background of these facts

and submissions. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the

applicant has already deposited the amount of fine of Rs.1 lakh

before the trial Court.


5.        Learned APP opposed this application. She relied on the

transcript which is reproduced in the Judgment. She submitted

that the anthracene powder was found on her hands and therefore

the prosecution has proved its case.
                                    4 of 5                 06-IA-3538-22


6.        I have considered these submissions. At this stage, both

the parties have raised some issues which will have to be decided

at the stage of final hearing. The applicant is sentenced to suffer

R.I. for 5 years. She is a lady. She was on bail during trial. There

are no antecedents against her. The reason for awarding more than

minimum sentence will have to be decided during final hearing

stage. Considering all these aspects, and since the matter is not

likely to be decided within a reasonably short period, I am inclined

to grant bail to the applicant.


7.        Hence, the order:


                                       ORDER

i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal

Appeal No.1035 of 2022, the applicant is directed

to be released on bail on her furnishing P. R. Bond

in the sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties

in the like amount.

ii) The applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail of

Rs.30000/- for a period of 15 days from today.

5 of 5 06-IA-3538-22

Within that period, she will have to furnish

sureties as directed.

iii)The application is disposed of.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)