* 1 * ABA. 145.2011 9.8.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2011 Shri. Arun L. Bongirwar .... Applicant V/S. Central Bureau of Investigation .... Respondents Mr. S. Venkitesamanan, i/bu. Mr. Ranjeet Sangle, advocate for the applicant Mr. Mandar Goswami, Special P.P. for Union of India. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 9th August, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The applicant herein is a retired IAS Officer. He had served as Chief Secretary to the State of Maharashtra till October, 2002. After serving the State for 41 years, he was appointed as Chairman, Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) and held that position till October, 2007. On 2nd December, 2010 an FIR was registered alleging that the applicant has committed offences punishable under Sections 120B Indian Penal Code read with 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravamen of the charge against the applicant is * 2 * ABA. 145.2011 9.8.2011 that as the Chairman of TAMP it was advisable under the guidelines adopted by the TAMP on 26/27th February, 1998 to revise the tariffs once in 2 years in order to provide stability to the ports and to the trade. Accordingly, the applicant was to revise the tariff in the year 2004. Instead, he revised the tariff in the year 2005. According to the prosecution, this delay on the part of the applicant in revising the tariff has resulted into pecuniary loss to the port authorities and benefit to the private operators. In these facts of the case, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required since the entire material which is in the form of documents is available with the Tariff Authority. There is no claim that any documents are in the possession of the applicants. Besides, as already mentioned above, the applicant has retired from his position as Chairman, TAMP in October, 2007. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, fairly concedes that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required at this stage. However, according to him it may be required in future in order to unearth the conspiracy. Even for that purpose, one fails to understand as to why custodial interrogation of the applicant is required because every information relating to the whole dispute is already available with the Tariff Authority of India. The second apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Union is that the * 3 * ABA. 145.2011 9.8.2011 applicant having retired from a high post with Government, may be in a position to influence the witnesses. The retirement of the applicant as Chief Secretary to the State of Maharashtra has taken place almost 10 years back i.e. in October, 2002. As such, he would hardly be in a position to influence any of the persons working either with the government or outside. Hence, the application is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the applicant in FIR No. RC-11(E)/2010 dated 2nd December, 2010, New Delhi he be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount. The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigation Officer, as and when, required. He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]