Satyanarayana Jagannatham Vanam vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1062 Bom

                             :1:                     14-i-IA-367-23.odt

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.367 OF 2023
                                IN
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.80 OF 2023

Satyanarayana Jagannatham Vanam ..... Applicant
           Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
and another                     .... Respondents

                             -----
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Advocate a/w. Divya Singh, Sankalp
Vichare, for the Applicant.
Mr. Amit Munde, Special P.P. for Respondent No.1-CBI.
Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.
                             -----

                                   CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
                                   DATE : 1st FEBRUARY, 2023

P.C. :

1.                This is an application for bail pending final

disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.80/2023 preferred by the

applicant against the judgment and order dated 12.1.2023

passed by Special Judge, CBI, for Greater Bombay in Special

Case No.116/2013. The applicant was the original accused

No.1.          He was convicted for commission of the offence

punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of

                                                                  1 of 4

Deshmane(PS)
                        :2:                       14-i-IA-367-23.odt

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was

sentenced to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of

Rs.20,000/- and in default to suffer SI for six months. There

was another accused i.e. accused No.2 Mehboob Jaffer Ali

Shaikh who was separately convicted.


2.         Heard Shri Sudeep Pasbola, learned counsel for

the applicant, Shri Amit Munde, learned Special P.P. for the

respondent No.1-CBI and Smt. M.R. Tidke, learned APP for

the respondent No.2-State.


3.         The prosecution case is that the applicant was

the Office Superintendent . with the Income Tax Department

in Mumbai. The complainant i.e. PW-2 Abdul Razak Mansuri

had sold his house in Kharghar. The accused No.2 was

entrusted the work of filing income tax return by PW-2.

Accused No.2 told PW-2 that PW-2 was required to pay

Rs.1,70,000/- by way of tax in that transaction. He further

told PW-2 that he will have to pay Rs.40,000/- to the present

applicant who was the Superintendent in the office of the

Income Tax. The complainant-PW-2 did not want to pay the
                                                              2 of 4
                          :3:                      14-i-IA-367-23.odt

amount and, therefore, he lodged his complaint with the

CBI. A trap was laid on 13.11.2013 and the prosecution case

is that the accused No.2 was found having accepted the

amount of Rs.20,000/-.


4.         Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that

there is absolutely no evidence against the present applicant.

There was no direct conversation between PW-2 and the

applicant wherein any demand was made.              The only

conversation referred to by PW-2 does not make any

reference to any demand. The demand was made by the

accused No.2 even as per the prosecution case. The money

was also found with the accused No.2. There is absolutely

no evidence against the applicant.


5.         Learned counsel for the CBI submitted that the

money was demanded by the applicant for himself but the

accused No.2 was directed to receive that amount. There

was direct nexus between the applicant and the accused

No.2 and, therefore, the prosecution case was true.

6.         I have considered these submissions. The appeal
                                                               3 of 4
                                                                :4:                        14-i-IA-367-23.odt

                                 is already admitted. The major sentence imposed is for three

                                 years. The appeal is not likely to be decided during that

                                 period. The applicant was on bail during trial. There are no

                                 antecedents against the applicant. There are some important

                                 issues raised by Shri Pasbola which will have to be decided

                                 at the final hearing stage.

                                 7.                Considering all these aspects, the applicant can

                                 be granted bail during pendency of his appeal. Hence, the

                                 following order :

                                                               :: O R D E R ::

i. During pendency and final disposal of Criminal

Appeal No.80/2023, the applicant is directed to be

released on bail on his furnishing P.R. bond in the

sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)

with one or two sureties in the like amount.

ii. Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.

Digitally signed

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) by PRADIPKUMAR PRADIPKUMAR PRAKASHRAO PRAKASHRAO DESHMANE DESHMANE Date:

2023.02.03 17:23:45 +0530

Deshmane (PS)

4 of 4