HANZEL ANTHONY FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Made returnable forthwith. Heard Mr. Mirajkar for the petitioner and Mr. Mirza, APP for the Respondent-State.

(2.) THE petitioner was charged for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is working as Upper Division Clerk with the Customs Department and was arrested by C.B.I., A.C.B. on 4/9/95 on the charge of taking bribe in the sum of Rs. 3,000/-. He has been suspended from service with effect from 7/9/1995. After his arrest on 4/9/95 he was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay on 5/9/95 when he was ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with option to furnish cash bail as security. The petitioner has furnished cash bail in pursuance of the said order and has been released on bail.

(3.) IT is this order which is under challenge in the above writ petition. As contended by Mr. Mirajkar on behalf of the petitioner, the impugned order is required to be set aside as once the accused was released on bail, the same bail should have been continued after the case was filed against him before the Special Court and there was no necessity for the Special Judge to pass a separate order for release of the petitioner on bail on higher amount as it is done. The Supreme Court in the case of Free Legal Aid Committee V. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1982 SC 1463 has held that once the bail is granted by the lower Court the same could be continued by the Court of Sessions when the matter is committed to that Court. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Anand Krishnaya v. Assistant Collector of Customs reported in 1988 (1) Bom.C.R. 8 holding that if the bail has been granted to the accused during the investigation the accused need not be required to offer bail at the different stages of the prosecution.