Society's Faith In Judicial System Should Not Be Shaken"; Bombay High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Magistrate Accused Of Corruption

The Bombay High Court has refused anticipatory bail to a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) from Maval Court, in Maharashtra, accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe and accepting it through an associate, to pass a favourable order. Justice Sarang Kotwal observed that JMFC Archana Jatkar was occupying a very "responsible position," and a thorough investigation is required considering the seriousness of the allegations against her. "Society's faith in the judicial system should not be shaken by such instances. The investigating agency needs to go deep in the matter," the court observed. The court relied heavily on a tapped telephonic conversation between Jatkar and co-accused Shubhavari Gaikwad, who was allegedly arrested red-handed while accepting the tainted money from a milk vendor to 'manage' a case filed by Amul, against him. The conversation was recorded as verification just before the raid on Swapnil Shevkar's complaint. Jatkar has been booked under sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Citing the investigation, the court observed that Jatkar and Gaikwad exchanged over 147 calls. "These conversations are strong indication of Applicant's involvement in the offence... her custodial interrogation is also necessary to find out the exact nature of relation between both the accused and as to whether in any other case these two have acted similarly." Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for Jatkar, submitted that his client had an eleven-month-old child, with her husband working in Mumbai and came in contact with Gaikwad because she required a baby sitter. She was unaware of the demands made behind her back, he argued. Countering his arguments, State's counsel SH Yadav cited the January 11, 2021 telephonic conversation to submit that it showed Jatkar's "clear involvement" and she could not claim ignorance. In its order, the court re-produced a part of the alleged incriminating phone call. Justice Kotwal noted that Gaikwad refers to the specific case number and says the 'party' (first informant) is sitting in front of her. Jatkar allegedly replied that everything would be alright and there would be no issues. "But ask him definitely whether it was for lodging FIR ……….. no order," the JMFC allegedly said. "This conversation, prima facie, at least at this stage, does indicate the Jatkar's involvement in the case. It is not as if the Applicant (Jatkar) was not aware about what the co-accused was saying," Justice Kotwal said. In its order, the court refused to show leniency to Jatkar, but, considered the position of her innocent child in the event she was to be arrested. "In the eventuality of the Applicant's arrest, the investigating agency shall not deny the Applicant access to her child. All the necessary facilities should be provided to the child when the child is with the Applicant," Justice Kotwal said in the order. The allegations are that for passing order in favour Nesarikar ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2021 10:33:55 ::: 2 / 10 02-ABA-591-21.odt of the first informant, bribe was demanded and her associate actually accepted bribe. 3. The FIR was lodged by one Swapnil MadhukarShevkar. He has stated that he is in the business of milkcollection and selling that milk further to Amul Dairy. On 04/01/2021, his brother told him that a lady had come to theirhouse and was asking him as to whether he was aware that Amul Dairy had filed a criminal case against him in Wadagaon Maval Court and as to whether they had received any notice of the same. She had told the informant's brother that the hearing was fixed on 06/01/2021. She had even given her mobile phone number. The informant accordingly made a phone call to that number. The lady informed him telephonically that her name was Mhatre and that a case was filed against him. She asked him whether he had received any notice and as to whether he had engaged any advocate. At that time, he told her that he was not aware of any such thing. Thereafter she asked him to meet her. According to her suggestion, the informant went to ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2021 10:33:55 ::: 3 / 10 02-ABA-591-21.odt Emerland hotel. At that time, she removed papers pertaining to a Court case. Those were about a criminal case filed by Amul Dairy against him and the next date of hearing was fixed on 06/01/2021. She told him that there was a strong possibility that a serious offence would be registered against him and he and his brother would be arrested. He would have to spend a lot of expenses for engaging Advocate, then finding sureties etc. She categorically stated that she could manage the judge and then the case could be dismissed. Thereafter the informant could even file complaint against Amul Dairy. She demanded Rs.5 lakhs for doing that work. After some negotiations, the amount was...

Society's Faith In Judicial System Should Not Be Shaken"; Bombay High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Magistrate Accused Of Corruption

Sharmeen Hakim

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sharmeen Hakim

Society's Faith In Judicial System Should Not Be Shaken"; Bombay High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Magistrate Accused Of Corruption

Sharmeen Hakim

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sharmeen Hakim

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers