Tausif Ahemd Burhanoddin Shaikh v. The State Of Maharashtra

1 / 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3761 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1021 OF 2024 Tausif Ahemd Burhanoddin Shaikh .... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent .......

• Mr. Saurabh K. Raut, Advocate for Applicant.

• Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for the State/Respondent.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2024 P.C. :

1.

This is an application for bail pending Appeal. The Applicant was the accused in Special ACB Case No.22/2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik. The learned Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 29/08/2024 convicted the Applicant for commission of offence punishable u/s 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date:

2024.09.20 11:29:03 +0530 MANUSHREE NESARIKAR imprisonment for two months.

Nesarikar

2 / 4 2.

Heard Mr. Saurabh K. Raut, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, learned APP for the State. 3.

The prosecution case is that the complainant Ahuja's mother-in-law had executed a Will in respect of the residential house at Ulhasnagar in the name of her daughter i.e. the complainant's wife. The complainant had approached the office of Talathi, Upnagar. The Applicant was working as a Helper in that Talathi office. In those proceedings, one Purushottam Rohira filed his objection against recording the complainant's wife's name in respect of that property. It is the prosecution case that, in this connection to get a favourable order from the Circle Officer, the Applicant demanded Rs.25,000/-. The demand made by the Applicant was verified and the trap was laid on 07/06/2013 in which the Applicant was caught accepting Rs.20,000/-.

4.

The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the ingredients of section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

3 / 4 1988 are not proved by the prosecution. The necessary intention mentioned u/s 8(1)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not proved by the prosecution. He submitted that the complainant had refused to give his voice sample for test analysis as far as demand is concerned. He further submitted that the Applicant was on bail during trial for more than 10 years. He has not misused that liberty. Even after his conviction he was granted bail u/s 389 of Cr.P.C. The Appeal is not likely to be decided within a short span of two yeas and therefore the Applicant deserves to be granted bail pending his Appeal. 5.

Learned APP opposed these submissions on the merits of the matter. He submitted that the offence is proved. The trap was successful. However, he could not oppose the submissions that the sentence is short.

6.

Considering this situation and since the Appeal is not likely to be decided within a reasonably short period and since the Applicant was on bail during trial and he has not misused

4 / 4 that liberty, I am inclined to grant bail to the Applicant pending his Appeal.

7.

Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i) During the pendency and final disposal of the Criminal Appeal No.1021 of 2024, 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 stands disposed of accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)