09 July 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

In Nitin Ramesh Garje v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others., an Application for pre-arrest bail filed by an Additional Tehsildar of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), has been rejected. The public servant, identified as the applicant in the proceedings related to C.R. No. 0201/25, is accused of demanding bribes through agents for favorable decisions on land mutation entries.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on May 16, 2025, by Naseer Gani Khan, who alleged that a clerk, Shivaji Harkal, at the Tehsil Office, along with a person named Nitin Chavan, demanded a bribe of Rs. 60,000 per file, totaling Rs. 3,00,000, on behalf of the Additional Tehsildar. This demand was reportedly for a correction in a mutation entry concerning a plot of land, which the complainant claims was inaccurately registered with a smaller area.

The applicant's senior counsel, Mr. Deshmukh, argued that the case was false and a vengeful act, stating that the complainant's son's file regarding the land correction had already been rejected by the applicant on March 25, 2025. He emphasized the lack of direct demand or acceptance of a bribe by the applicant and highlighted that four demand verification traps had failed. Mr. Deshmukh also pointed out a "belated" lodging of the FIR on May 16, 2025, suggesting collusion.

However, the learned APP, Mr. Narwade, strongly opposed the bail, presenting evidence from the case diary. He highlighted that after the initial rejection on March 25, 2025, the applicant issued another order on April 25, 2025, advising the complainant of his right to appeal the decision. This subsequent order, according to the prosecution, raised suspicions that led the complainant to approach the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

Crucial to the prosecution's case is the alleged modus operandi involving Nitin Chavan and another private individual, Sohel Bahashwan, acting as agents. CCTV footage from the Tehsil Office for May 13-15, 2025, reportedly shows Nitin Chavan handing bundles of currency notes to the applicant on two occasions. Furthermore, the investigation revealed frequent communication between the applicant and Nitin Chavan, suggesting a close working relationship.

The prosecution also brought to light the applicant's history of alleged corruption. He is reportedly involved in another crime (No. 118/2018) where sanction for prosecution is pending, and an FIR from July 2018 alleges a bribe demand of Rs. 8,00,000. Additionally, an open inquiry (No. 8/2019) is underway regarding disproportionate assets, with one witness claiming a bribe demand of Rs. 15,00,000 from the applicant.

The court noted the success of a trap operation on May 15, 2025, where the complainant handed over Rs. 60,000 to Sohel Bahashwan, who was acting on behalf of the applicant. This demand was reportedly for the complainant's file and four other pending files belonging to his friends and relatives.

Emphasizing the importance of custodial interrogation in such cases to unearth links and the full extent of the alleged syndicate, the court cited Supreme Court judgments. It also took a serious view of the applicant's conduct during the bail proceedings, noting the belated submission of arguments and an unexplained acquisition of a pre-trap panchanama report before the chargesheet was filed.

Finding a prima facie case against the applicant and considering the apprehension that he might flee from justice given his influential position, the court rejected the pre-arrest bail application.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988