1 ABA-956.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.956 OF 2011 {For Anticipatory Bail} Shailesh Shivdas Meshram .... Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Subodh Desai i/b V.N. Shingnapurkar for the Applicant. Ms P.P. Bhosale, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by one Deputy Regional Transport Officer who is alleged to have demanded a bribe of `2,000/- for reserving "MH-02-BQ-7777 and MH-02-BQ-1000" numbers for vehicles of the complainant Mulla. Mulla applied for reserving these numbers on 18-10-2011. The Clerk concerned in the Department mentioned that MH-02-BQ-7777 and MH-02-BQ-1000 numbers were available. He endorsed on the relevant applications that these numbers were available. This endorsement 2 ABA-956.11 was made on 19-10-2011. 2. On 20-10-2011, at about 12:30 noon, Mulla complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (for short, ACB ) about demand of extra amount by the applicant. He also stated that it was the practice of the applicant to sign the orders after such extra amount is received by his agent Kasam, where-after panchas were called and the complaint was verified before the panchas. Then the complainant was given a digital recorder and sent to the office of the applicant. Conversations of various persons in that office were recorded on the digital recorder and it shows that the applicant had demanded `2,000/-, possibly for allotting each such number. Mulla is supposed to have agreed to pay this amount. The applications for allotment of numbers, which have been seized by the ACB, show that the applicant had signed those orders allotting the numbers on 20-10-2011 itself. 3. The applicant's agent Kasam was trapped accepting a sum of `2,000/- on 3-11-2011. Kasam was remanded to police custody for a day and was bailed out on 5-11-2011. The applicant applied before the Sessions Court for 3 ABA-956.11 grant of anticipatory bail but his application was rejected by the order dated 17-11-2011. This is why the applicant is before this Court. 4. The learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has possibly been falsely implicated because he had initiated action against several motor driving schools. He submitted that after the applicant had endorsed on the relevant applications orders for allotment of the concerned registration numbers, there was no question of the applicant demanding bribe from the person concerned. 5. The learned APP is right in submitting that the demand itself was made on 20-10-2011 and the endorsements could have been made after the person concerned agreed to pay the bribe. All the same, the learned APP, with instructions from Dinesh Katke, Assistant Commissioner of Police, ACB, Mumbai, could not give any reason why the applicant's being in custody for the purpose of investigation is necessary. The offence is one of trap of an agent while receiving bribe. It is not alleged at this stage that any investigation into the assets of the applicant is to be carried out. 4 ABA-956.11 In a trap case it is not clear as to what further evidence is to be collected. Confronting the applicant with other persons present in his chamber does not require the applicant's being in custody. Even if it is presumed that the applicant did demand the bribe amount and Kasam accepted the amount at the applicant's instance, it is not clear as to why the applicant need to be in custody. Sample of voice of the applicant can be taken even without his being in custody. Though the conduct of the applicant may be bad enough, it was worst still that the investigating agency could not think of one good reason for having the applicant in custody, except those discussed above. 6. In view of the above, in the event of the applicant s arrest in C.R. No.42 of 2011 being investigated by ACB, Mumbai, the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of `1,00,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to `1,00,000/- on the condition that the applicant shall report at the office of the ACB initially on 25-11-2011 at 11:00 a.m. for interrogation and thereafter as and when required by the I.O. for a period of one month. The applicant shall 5 ABA-956.11 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and he shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court. 7. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicant may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 312. 8. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)