Ladda 1 aba-5376-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 5376 OF 2010 Mr Lloyd Lenny Anthony ..Applicant. Versus The Union Territory of Daman and Diu ...Respondent. ...... Shri M.R.Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri D.N. Salvi, Advocate for C.B.I. Smt P.P. Bhosale, A.P.P.for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED:- 18th March 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time in this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant-accused apprehending his arrest in C.R. No. BA1/2010/A0039-Mumbai registered with A.C.B. C.B.I.,Silvassa Branch (U.T.), dated 28th October, 2010 under the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Perused the contents of the application and the accompanying documents, including the contents of the F.I.R. and also the fax report sent by the complainant prior to filing his F.I.R. with the police. Also, Ladda 2 aba-5376-10.doc perused the ratios propounded by the various authorities cited by learned advocate for the applicant. The said authorities are as under. 1 1981 Cr.L.R.305 2 (Jagannath vs. State of Maharashtra) 3 1989 (2) Bom. C.R. 178 4 (Pankaj Vidhyasagar Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra) 5 1997 I LJ 698 6 (Shivaji Vasantrao Harne vs. State of Maharashtra) 7 1998 (4) L.J. 202 8 (Shaikh farid Hussainsab vs. State of Maharashtra) 9 1994 (3) JT 423 10 Joginder Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. The facts of the matter are rather peculiar, inasmuch, as present applicant is a police officer, earlier in the service of Nani Daman, under the control of Central Administration. Complainant, in the matter, was in fact charged for some offence by the present applicant and in order to hush up the matter against the complainant and to set him free, coercive demand was allegedly made by the present applicant with the complainant and Rs.25,000/- were asked to be paid to the complainant. There were negotiations between the complainant and the present applicant. During such talk the amount of Rs.25,000/- was reduced to Ladda 3 aba-5376-10.doc Rs.10,000/- and directions were given to the complainant to give the said amount to one named person. Said named person is accused No.2 in the present case and when trap was led by the C.B.I. party, said person was apprehended while accepting the tainted amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. 4. As earlier, it was requested by the present complainant to accept amount of Rs. 10,000/- after reduction from the earlier amount of Rs. 25,000/-, a written complaint was faxed by the complainant to the C.B.I. office. It was faxed on 25th October, 2010. Thereafter, verification process was conducted by the C.B.I., in which, it was ascertained as to the truthfulness of the complaint. As such by sending panch-witness with the complainant, a sort of arrangement was made in which there was a telephonic conversation entered into between the present applicant and the complainant. It was recorded on the tape-recording machine. From the said tape-recorded conversation it was ascertained by the C.B.I. officials that present applicant had demanded the bribe from the complainant and directions were given to the complainant to hand over the amount to the person who was subsequently arrested as mentioned above. 5. After verification of the complaint a trap was led on 28th October, 2010, in which, another co-accused was arrested for accepting Rs. Ladda 4 aba-5376-10.doc 10,000/-from the complainant. In the telephonic conversation, it was also revealed that said co-accused had also a talk with the present applicant confirming to the situation that he has to accept the amount for and on behalf of the present applicant from the complainant. 6. During the argument, learned counsel for the C.B.I. pointed out that after laying of the trap and after arrest of the person, then working at Nani Daman Police Station, the applicant was absconding and as such representation was made to the Higher Officials and present applicant was put under suspension. On 9th November, 2010 i.e. after about ten days time an application was preferred before the Sessions Court at Silvassa and interim relief was earlier granted. During interim relief present applicant under suspension attended the C.B.I. office. However, subsequently, on final hearing of the application for anticipatory bail the prayers were not granted and the application was rejected. However, the interim relief was continued by the Sessions Court for some period. In the said intervening period applicant came before this Court and ad-interim relief granted by the Sessions Court was continued and it was so continued till today, as matter could not reach for final hearing. Today, before this Court matter could reach for final hearing and it is being disposed of by the present order. 7. During the argument, learned Advocate for the applicant Ladda 5 aba-5376-10.doc vehemently argued that it is a matter, still considering that the applicant was ex-policeman, do not require the police custody, inasmuch, as the investigation is almost over and what is required for the prosecution is to ascertain the genuineness of the conversation already tape-recorded and to ascertain whether the present applicant was one of the authors of such conversation. By pointing out ratios propounded by the various authorities which are cited above, it is submitted that even if it is a matter of anticipatory bail for any police officer and when the investigation is almost over anticipatory bail can be granted when there is no need for the prosecuting agency for the custodial interrogation. 8. As against the above argument, it is submitted on behalf of the C.B.I. that initially there was abscondance of the present applicant and this conduct must weigh with the Court, when the present applicant was holding the post of Police Officer and was supposed to deal with the matters in their proper perspective. However, there are positive allegations against the present applicant that he demanded bribe initially Rs.25,000/-, then reduced to Rs.10,000/-, from the complainant, in order to hush up the criminal case against the said complainant. 9. It is further submitted on behalf of the C.B.I. that such conduct of the police officer coupled with his abscondance and present suspension Ladda 6 aba-5376-10.doc from the Police Department, do not warrant grant of any discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Though there are different parameters for granting anticipatory bail and one of them could be the pendency of investigation and requirement of the accused for custodial interrogation, certain other circumstances are also to be construed. Admittedly, as per the various decisions of the Apex Court such grounds cannot be exhaustive, but only are illustrative in nature. In other words, it would not be in the fitness of situation to grant anticipatory bail, in view of the facts that the present applicant fled away from the law and then after having clothed with the protection of pre-arrest bail appeared before the Investigating Agency and subsequently plead that now the investigation is over and his custody is not needed. Such course, if to be accepted, as argued on behalf of the applicant, is not fit and proper under the circumstances when this Court is seized of the matter for granting the discretionary relief. Considering the above circumstances and considering the post of the present applicant is holding and considering job requirement the applicant, definitely, it cannot lie in the mouth of the applicant that, now, he can be granted bail without being arrested by the police. The Investigating agency must have the opportunity to investigate on all facets of the case, including the aspect of any disproportionate assets collected by the applicant. In that view of Ladda 7 aba-5376-10.doc the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, the order. ORDER. Application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Earlier Interim relief granted from time to time stands vacated forthwith. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)