1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2421/2010 Anjali V.Bambole Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondents Mr.S.R.Pasbola with Mr.Rahul Arote for applicant Mr.S.K.Shinde for C.B.I. Mr.Gadkari,APP for State CORAM:MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. (VACATION COURT) DATE :10th MAY,2010. P.C. . This bail application is preferred by the applicant against the order passed by the Special Judge, City Civil Court ,Mumbai dated 5/5/2010 rejecting the bail application filed by the applicant. 2] The offence under section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is registered against the applicant/ accused alongwith other two accused. The applicant is working as an Assistant Commissioner of 2 Income Tax ,Thane Division, accused no.1 is an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax of the same division and accused no.2 is husband of accused no.1 who is a private person. It is alleged that accused no.1 in connivance with accused no.3 i.e. the present applicant had demanded bribe of Rs.2 crores from the complainant prior to 15/4/2010 . The complainant approached C.B.I., lodged complaint and thereafter on 16/4/2010 the C.B.I.raided and caught accused no.2 i.e.husband of accused no.1 red handed with bribe amount of Rs.50 lacs which is a part payment of total bribe amount of Rs.2 crores. It is the case of the prosecution that prior to the trap the complainant had already paid Rs.10 lacs to accused no.1 in her chamber to settle the matter in respect of irregular or non maintenance of accounts of his business. It is also alleged that amount of Rs.10 lacs more was paid by the complainant to accused no.1 who had handed over that amount to the applicant. 3] After the raid all the accused were arrested and the 3 applicant/accused was arrested on 19 th April,2010 and after the first remand she was transferred to the judicial custody from 27/4/2010. 4] She had applied for the bail but it was rejected by the Special Judge, Mumbai on 26/4/2010. 5] It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the C.B.I.has completed the required investigation against this applicant/accused and they have also recovered Rs.6 lacs from the house of the applicant for which the applicant has given explanation. It is submitted that the applicant/accused is having minor child suffering from cerebral palsy and therefore, for the treatment of her son she needs to keep ready cash in the house. It is submitted that the statements of most of the witnesses are also recorded. It is further submitted that being a woman the applicant is entitled to the bail. 6] Mr.Shinde, learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed 4 this bail application and has submitted that the C.B.I.is yet investigating the matter and has not accepted the explanation of the applicant in respect of finding of cash of Rs.6 lacs. The C.B.I.yet has to record the statements of many witnesses and during the course of investigation it is transpired that much bigger racket exists and they want to record the statements of many witness and also the statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that during the course of investigation it revealed that the applicant having conspired with accused nos.1 and 2 has also earlier demanded bribes of big amounts from the different parties. C.B.I. has come across such instances and also applied section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as they found that the accused are habitual offenders. 7] Read application. Perused the order of the Special Court, remand papers,etc.. Undoubtedly it is a very serious and grave matter . C.B.I.is suspecting deep rooted conspiracy in the department of Income Tax and they have to unearth sprawling 5 conspiracy of demanding and accepting bribe amounts from different persons . It appears that the investigation of the C.B.I.is not complete. Though the applicant being woman may pray bail under the proviso of section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the gravity of the offence and the application of section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 outweigh such concession under the law.The order passed by the Special Court rejecting the bail application of the applicant is legal and no interference is required in the said order. The application is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)