KHEMLO SAKHARAM SAWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) THIS application takes exception to the order passed by the Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji dated May 5, 2001, rejecting the application for bail preferred by the applicant herein.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, a complaint was received in the Crime Branch, Panaji from Shri Vinay Tendulkar alleging that on 27-4-2001 while he was in the midst of a meeting with the people from his constituency, the applicant/accused approached him for a private talk along with one Deepak Parab and told him that they were sent by Tai, i. e. Smt. Nirmala Sawant, President of Congress (T) of Goa State and seven MLAs of BJP who had shown inclination to join Congress (I) and further that they decided to offered him ministerial berth and Rs. 15 lakhs in cash to split from BJP and support Congress (I) to form Government. On the basis of this complaint, which was registered as Crime No. 3/2001, the concerned Station Officer, forwarded the said report to the Magistrate at around 18. 30 hours and thereafter proceeded to investigate into the matter. It is stated that statements of two witnesses, have been recorded by the concerned Investigating Officer, namely, of Prasad Tendulkar (brother of the complainant) and Rajiv Naik (Personal Assistant of the complainant ). It is stated that the Investigating Officer thereafter at around 11. 30 p. m. along with a posse of Police, visited the residential house of the applicant at Amona in Bicholim taluka and he was called upon to accompany the Police for investigation in connection with the said complaint. The record indicates that the applicant followed the police without any resistance, but it is stated that thereafter a group of 40 persons gheraoed the police and prevented them from taking away the applicant. There are certain allegations made in the affidavit about the conduct of the applicant at the relevant point of time. However, that is not the subject matter of the proceedings, for the offence alleged against the applicant, in the present case, is simpliciter under section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Undisputedly, the applicant was produced before the J. M. F. C. for the purpose of remand to police custody on 29th April, 2001 after he was arrested on 28th April, 2001 around 11. 30 p. m. It is not in dispute that the arrest was not pursuant to the warrant issued by the Court, but during the course of investigation by the concerned Investigation Officer. When the applicant was produced before the Magistrate for Police remand on the ground that his custody was necessary for another 7 days for further investigation, the Magistrate was pleased to reject the said request and ordered judicial custody. The order directing the applicant to be kept in judicial custody has become final. The order does record that statements of witnesses have been recorded and that nothing requires to be recovered. Thereafter, on the next date, the applicant moved the Judicial Magistrate, F. C. , i. e. on 30th April, 2001 for grant of bail. The said application was however rejected on the same day by a reasoned order. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application, mainly on the ground that the co-accused was absconding.