1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Application No. 1132 of 2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2010 Vishwanath Radhaji Sanap, Age 58 years, Occupation Service, R/o Neknoor, District Beed Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent ... Mr. M.A. Tandale, Advocate for the applicant Mr. V.D. Rakh, APP for the respondent / State ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 31st March, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant, whose appeal is admitted, now seeks bail. The applicant is convicted under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) and he is also directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. 3. The evidence against the applicant, in short, can be stated as under : 2 The complainant was arrested by the police of Neknoor Police Station. Shri. Bhisen was Police Sub-Inspector, in-charge of the police station. The complainant was arrested in connection with certain crime. His vehicle i. e. Tempo was seized, and, after the complainant was released on bail, both, the applicant and his superior officer Mr. Bhise, demanded Rs. 4,000/- for release of the vehicle. A trap was laid and applicant was caught red handed while accepting the tainted currency notes of Rs.4,000/-. It was the applicant, who was charge- sheeted alone, and as said above, he is convicted. 4. Though the case against the applicant is quite strong, the submission of Mr. Tandale, learned counsel for the applicant is that the prosecution launched against his client alone, leaving aside Shri. Bhisen was not proper. I went through the complaint and found that it was mainly Shri. Bhisen, who demanded the amount and was in-charge of the police station. He was also superior officer of the applicant. Though the applicant was investigating the case, it was Shri. Bhisen, who was orchestrating not only the investigation, but he was also controlling the matter relating to release of the vehicle. It was he, who first demanded the amount. Since the applicant was on bail during the pendency of the trial and in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the applicant deserves bail. 3. The applicant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one surety in the like amount. Pending hearing and disposal of the petition, the substantive sentence of 3 imprisonment awarded by the learned lower Court in Special Case No. 21 of 2003 shall stand suspended. 4. The Criminal Application is disposed of accordingly. [ A. V. NIRGUDE, J. ] srm/criapln850.10