NITIN RAMESH GARJE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant has filed the present Application for pre-arrest bail. He is the Additional Tehsildar of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, discharging his duties as a public servant. The proceedings relate to C.R. No. 0201/25. The First Information Report (for short "FIR') has been lodged on 16/5/2025 at 08.38 hours by the City Chowk Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The offences alleged are under Sec. 12 and 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'). The Complainant is one Naseer Gani Khan, aged 50 years, who is the person from whom the alleged bribe was demanded at the behest/on behalf of the Applicant, by and through his agents.

(2.) It appears that the Complainant visited the Tehsil Office where he met one Shivaji Harkal i.e. Clerk working there. There are allegations of demand by the said Shivaji Harkal, who informed the Informant when they met with in order to receive a favourable decision in his case, the said Harkal would have to pay money to the Upper Tehsildar, i.e. the Applicant. Also that the Informant would have to speak to a person named Chavan who looks after the work of the Applicant. It appears that the Complainant had purchased 76.67 sq. mtrs. area of plot in Gat No. 158. Accordingly, the name of the Complainant had been registered as per the mutation entry No. 13099. However, by registering the mutation entry it was registered as 68 Sq. mtrs. as against 76.67 sq. mtrs. i.e. about 9 sq. mtrs. less and such mutation entry was approved. On 13/5/2025 that the Complainant lodged the Complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short 'ACB') against the demand of the bribe amount. Acting upon the said Compliant, it was registered by the ACB in presence of two panchas and a trap panchanama was conducted on 13/5/2025 at 17.00 hours. The Complainant along with one Nitin Chavan, working with/known to the Applicant went to the Tea Stall. There the alleged demand of the bribe amount of Rs.60,000.00 per file, totaling to Rs.3,00,000.00 was made to be given to the Applicant.

(3.) Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant would at the very outset submit that through the FIR a false case has been registered against the Applicant to frame him/falsely implicate him and malign his reputation and career. This is only because the case of the Complainant's son with regard to a file pertaining to correction in the area of plot or land for purpose of alteration in the mutation entry was rejected by the Applicant by an order dtd. 25/3/2025, for which, a Complaint was lodged with the ACB on 13/5/2025. There is no demand nor acceptance qua the present Applicant. There is no work pending with the present Applicant as far as the Complainant is concerned. The case was registered by the Complainant with the ACB only on a mere suspicion to demand bribe for his work to be done. He would submit that four demand verification traps have failed. Even if the private person did accept the bribe amount but that was not for and/or on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant has not played any role in either instigating and/or inducing the Complainant to hand over such bribe amount of Rs.60,000.00 per file,there being five files in total making the amount at Rs.3,00,000.00 to the private person as noted in the FIR. The Complaint has been lodged only with an intent to take revenge because of the adverse decision on the file of the Complainant's son which came to be taken on 25/3/2025. The FIR, according to the Applicant, contains general and/or vague allegations, thus there is no satisfaction of the basic ingredients required to be fulfilled under Ss. 12 and 7(a) of the PC Act. Mr. Deshmukh would place reliance on an additional affidavit filed by the Applicant dtd. 14/6/2025. By such affidavit, he places on record inter-alia the decision dtd. 25/3/2025 passed by the Applicant in his capacity as Upper Tahsildar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar whereby the decision on the file of the Applicant in regard to the mutation entries concerning the plot of land has been rejected. He would reiterate that it is only to avenge the such rejection, that the Complaint by the Complainant was filed and that too much belatedly on 16/5/2025 pursuant to which the FIR was lodged. There is absolutely no explanation on such inordinate delay in lodging the said FIR which raises suspicion against the investigating agency who is acting in collusion and connivance with the Complainant, with an intent to falsely implicate the Applicant.