Mandar Ashok Tari v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2372 of 2024 Mandar Ashok Tari Aged about 43 years, Occ. Service, R/at. Flat No.19, Building No.B-1, B Wing, Narayan Pujari Nagar, Worli Sea Face, Mumbai - 400 018.

... Applicant versus

1. The State of Maharashtra through ACB, Mumbai.

2. Goldie Sud 191/192, SBS Colony, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 59.

... Respondents ---- Mr Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr Karan Mehta a/w Mr Viresh Purwant, Ms Jayshree Gade, Mr Ram Salunkhe, Ms Asha Mehta, Mr Nishant Shah and Ms Barsha Parulekar, for the applicant.

Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr H S Venegaonkar a/w Ms Supriya Kak, APP, for respondent No.1 / State.

Mr Mubin Solkar a/w Mr Tahir Hussain and Mr Anas Shaikh i/b. Ms Hemali Kurne, for respondent No.2.

ADCP Rajendra Sangale (IO), a/w. PI Suhas Hattekar and PI Mohan Jagdale, ACB, Mumbai Unit, present.

---- Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 24 October 2024 Digitally signed by MAMTA AMAR KALE Date:

2024.10.25 10:46:12 +0530 MAMTA AMAR KALE

P.C.:

.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with CR No.23 of 2024, registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, for the offences punishable under Sections under Section 7 and 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3.

The learned Counsel for the applicant acknowledges that non-bailable warrants are issued against the applicant and submits that the applicant will approach the competent Court on 4 November 2024 to seek its cancellation. Until then, the learned Counsel seeks interim protection. The learned Counsel further submits that if the application for cancellation of warrants is decided against the applicant, the applicant be protected for a further period of one week from the date of the decision to seek appropriate remedies available in law. Furthermore, the learned Counsel states that during this period, the applicant will not enter the concerned office of MCGM or indulge in any activities that may tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

4.

At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 / State, on instructions, submits that the applicant will not be arrested during the pendency of the application for cancellation of the non-bailable warrants and a week after that if the application is rejected, with a stipulation that the applicant shall appear before the concerned Court as agreed and cooperate with that Court for the expeditious disposal of the application.

5.

In view of the above, the application stands disposed of with liberty to approach this Court if the occasion so arises. (R.N. Laddha, J.)