Bombay High Court
Mehboob Jaffer Ali Shaikh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 14 February, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1 of 5 3-ia-568-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 568 OF 2023
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 157 OF 2023
Mehboob Jaffer Ali Shaikh ..Applicant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. Girish Kulkarni i/b. Omkar Ghag for Applicant.
Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil for CBI/Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for State/Respondent No.2.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 14 FEBRUARY 2023
PC :
1. This is an application for bail pending final disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2023 preferred by the Applicant against
the Judgment and order dated 12/01/2023 passed by learned
Special Judge, CBI, Greater Bombay in Special Case No.116 of
2013. The applicant was the original accused No.2. He was
convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to suffer
R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- and in default
Digitally
VINOD
signed by
VINOD
BHASKAR
of payment of fine to suffer S.I. for six months. The co-accused
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2023.02.15
12:03:44
+0530 Gokhale
2 of 5 3-ia-568-23
Satyanarayana Vanam was convicted for commission of offences
punishable Under sections 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard Shri. Girish Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
Applicant, Shri. Kuldeep Patil, learned counsel for the
CBI/Respondent No.1 and Shri. Agarkar, learned APP for the
State/Respondent No.2.
3. The prosecution case is that the applicant was entrusted
with the work of filing income tax return by the complainant i.e.
PW-2 Abdul Mansuri. The co-accused i.e. accused No.1 was the
Office Superintendent working with the Income Tax Department in
Mumbai. The complainant i.e. PW-2 had sold his house in
Kharghar. It is the prosecution case that the applicant told PW-2
that he 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.40000/- to the accused No.1. The complainant-PW-2 did not
want to pay the bribe amount and, therefore, he lodged his
complaint with the CBI. A trap was laid on 13/11/2013. The
3 of 5 3-ia-568-23
prosecution case is that the applicant was found having accepted
the amount of Rs.20000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that,
admittedly, the applicant was a Tax Consultant working for PW-2
and there is a strong possibility that the amount was received as
professional fees and not as bribe. He further submitted that the
complainant had placed that amount in the drawer of the
applicant without his knowledge and thereafter had handshake
with the applicant thereby transferring the antharacene powder on
the hand of the applicant. He submitted that, in any case, the
prosecution case is that the amount was accepted on behalf of the
accused No.1 whose appeal is separately admitted and he is
already granted bail in connection with his appeal. Learned
counsel further submitted that the sentence imposed on the
applicant is short and the Appeal is not likely to be decided within
that period. The applicant was on bail during trial and he has not
misused that liberty. Even after conviction the applicant was
granted bail U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c.
4 of 5 3-ia-568-23
5. Learned counsel for the CBI opposed these submissions
on merits. He submitted that, the telephonic conversation is
recorded through which the demand made by the applicant is
proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that, presence of
antharacene powder on the hands of the applicant shows that he
had accepted that amount. However, he conceded that the
sentence imposed is short.
6. All the points raised by both learned counsel will have to
be decided at the final hearing stage. The sentence imposed is
short and the Appeal is not likely to be decided within that period.
The co-accused, who according to the prosecution case is the
person for whom the bribe amount was demanded and accepted;
is already granted bail pending his appeal. The applicant was on
bail during trial and there are no allegations of misusing that
liberty. Even after conviction the applicant was granted bail
U/s.389 of the Cr.p.c. Considering all these aspects, the applicant
can be granted bail pending final disposal of his appeal.
7. Hence, the following order:
5 of 5 3-ia-568-23
ORDER
i) During pendency and final disposal of Criminal
Appeal No.157 of 2023, the Applicant is directed
to be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond
in the sum of Rs.30000/- with one or two sureties
in the like amount.
ii) The Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
