Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an anticipatory bail application filed by Nitin Ramesh Garje, an Additional Tehsildar of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar discharging duties as a public servant, in connection with Crime No. 0201/25 registered by City Chowk Police Station for offences under Sections 12 and 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Naseer Gani Khan, aged 50 years, alleged that bribe was demanded from him on behalf of the applicant through private agents. The background involved a mutation entry relating to a plot in Gat No. 158 where the complainant's name was registered for 68 sq. mtrs. instead of 76.67 sq. mtrs., leading to a request for correction. The complainant approached the Anti Corruption Bureau on 13 May 2025, following which a trap panchanama was conducted on the same day and a successful trap operation took place between 13 and 15 May 2025, leading to the FIR on 16 May 2025. According to the FIR, the complainant was asked to pay Rs. 60,000 per file, totaling Rs. 3,00,000 for five files, to the applicant through one Nitin Chavan and Sohel Bahashwan. The demand was allegedly made at a tea stall and the amount of Rs. 60,000 was accepted by Sohel in the presence of a panch witness. The applicant contended that the case was false and lodged to avenge the rejection of the complainant's son's file on 25 March 2025; he argued there was no demand or acceptance by him, no work pending, four demand verification traps had failed, and the private person accepted the bribe not on his behalf. He also highlighted delay in filing the FIR and claimed the allegations were vague. The State opposed bail by relying on the case diary and CCTV footage from the Tehsil Office between 13 and 15 May 2025, which allegedly showed the applicant handing bundles of currency notes to Nitin Chavan on two occasions. The State also pointed out that the applicant passed another order on 25 April 2025 after the order of 25 March 2025, which was suspicious, and that the applicant had prior criminal history including Crime No. 118/2018, FIR No. 0502 dated 24 July 2018 for demand of Rs. 8,00,000, and an open enquiry No. 8/2019 regarding disproportionate assets. The court, in its findings, noted that the trap panchanama and CCTV footage prima facie revealed that the applicant used the arrested co-accused Sohel and Nitin Chavan as agents to demand and accept bribes. The court observed that Sohel referred to Nitin Chavan as 'Garje Saab's right hand', and that the applicant was seen handing cash to Chavan on two occasions. The court rejected the argument of inordinate delay because the trap was completed promptly and FIR lodged on 16 May 2025 at 08:38 hours. It also referred to the Supreme Court decision in CBI v. Santosk Karnani & Anr. regarding the first proviso to Section 17A, indicating that prior approval in trap cases would defeat the purpose. Considering the applicant's prior corruption history and pending disproportionate assets inquiries, the court held that custodial interrogation was warranted and rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Pre-arrest bail in corruption cases - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7(a), 12 - The High Court examined whether a public servant accused of demanding bribe through private agents was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The court found that the trap panchanama and CCTV footage prima facie indicated demand and acceptance of bribe at the behest of the applicant, and that custodial interrogation was warranted due to the applicant's prior corruption history and pending inquiries. Held that pre-arrest bail was not appropriate (Paras 6-9). B) Criminal Law - Bribe Demand through Agents - Liability of public servant for acts of intermediaries - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7(a), 12 - The court considered whether acceptance of bribe by private persons could implicate the applicant. The material showed that Nitin Chavan and Sohel Bahashwan acted as agents, with Chavan described as the applicant's right hand and the applicant seen handing cash bundles to Chavan on CCTV. Held that the demand and acceptance through agents at the behest of the applicant constituted prima facie offences under Section 7(a) read with Section 12 (Paras 6-7, 9). C) Criminal Law - Sanction for Investigation - Prior approval under first proviso to Section 17A in trap cases - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 17A - The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in CBI v. Santosk Karnani & Anr. and noted that prior approval or sanction to investigate an officer in a trap case would defeat the very purpose. Held that the first proviso to Section 17A did not bar investigation in trap cases (Para 9). D) Criminal Law - Delay in Filing FIR - Effect of delay on anticipatory bail - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The applicant argued inordinate delay in lodging FIR. The court noted the trap was conducted between 13 and 15 May 2025 and FIR lodged on 16 May 2025 at 08:38 hours, and held there was no gross or inordinate delay, so delay did not favour the applicant (Paras 3, 6). E) Criminal Law - Prior Criminal History and Disproportionate Assets - Relevance to anticipatory bail - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(b), 13(2) - The court considered past FIRs against the applicant for bribery, pending sanction, open enquiry No. 8/2019 on disproportionate assets, and witness statement alleging demand of Rs 15,00,000. Held that the history of similar allegations and pending inquiries indicated a pattern and warranted custodial interrogation rather than anticipatory bail (Paras 5, 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, a public servant, was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with C.R. No. 0201/25 for offences under Sections 7(a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where bribe was allegedly demanded through private agents and the applicant had prior corruption allegations; and whether the first proviso to Section 17A required prior approval for investigation in a trap case.
Final Decision
The High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, holding that prima facie material including CCTV footage and trap panchanama indicated that the applicant demanded bribe through private agents at his behest and that custodial interrogation was warranted given his prior corruption history and pending inquiries.
Law Points
- pre-arrest bail in corruption cases requires examination of prima facie material
- bribe demand through agents implicates public servant under Sections 7(a) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- prior approval under Section 17A first proviso not required in trap cases
- delay in FIR not fatal if trap and investigation are proximate
- prior criminal history and pending disproportionate assets inquiries weigh against bail
- custodial interrogation warranted where public servant has history of corruption
