MUMBAI: The sessions court on Friday granted bail to a senior Fire Brigade officer arrested on August 30 for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹60,000 from a private individual seeking a Piped Natural Gas (PNG) connection and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a hotel.
A public servant at the fire brigade office in Mumbai, Pralhad Machindra Shitole, allegedly demanded ₹1,30,000 from the informant for an NOC and a PNG connection, but the amount was later negotiated to ₹80,000.
The informant filed an oral complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in Mumbai. Following the procedures under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, including pre-trap and post-trap panchnamas, it was discovered that Shitole accepted ₹60,000 in bribe.
During the search, Shitole allegedly destroyed the evidence by flushing the money down the commode. Consequently, Shitole faces charges under Section 7 (offence relating to public servant being bribed) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 238 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender) of BNS, 2023.
Advocate Vaibhav G Bagade, representing Shitole, contested the prosecution’s case, arguing that the remand application failed to demonstrate that Shitole was involved in demanding the bribe. He asserted that the informant’s account is false, questioning the credibility of the complainant, who is a liaison agent and, therefore, has a questionable standing as a de facto complainant.
It was further noted that the investigation, including pre-trap and post-trap procedures, house searches, and voice sampling, is complete and requested bail for Shitole, citing the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception.” He further argued that Shitole should be granted bail without delving into the case’s merits at this stage.
Additional public prosecutor Lade opposed Shitole’s bail application, arguing that Shitole attempted to destroy evidence by flushing the bribe money. The investigation is ongoing, with witness statements yet to be recorded and relevant documents still to be collected. Additionally, ₹3,25,700 found at Shitole’s residence needs verification, and there may be further evidence in a locker and CCTV footage from the incident location. The prosecution contends that granting bail could risk tampering with the investigation, evidence, and witnesses.
Advocate Bagade further argued that the investigating officer did not provide written grounds for Shitole’s arrest at the time of arrest or afterwards. The letter dated August 31, 2024, provided to him only outlines details about the arrest and the applicant’s rights, including the ability to seek legal advice and medical aid, but does not specify the grounds for the arrest.
In reply to this, the prosecution counsel and investigating officer both confirmed compliance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines regarding arrest procedures. They stated that the letter dated August 31, 2024, provided to Shitole at the time of arrest fulfils all requirements and that there was no violation of arrest provisions.
Going through the merits of the application, special judge S B Joshi addressed concerns about the possibility of tampering with CCTV footage if the accused is released on bail by noting that the footage can be retrieved without the applicant’s presence and granted bail to Shitole on Friday. He further said, “Considering the investigation up until which is almost completed, it would not be justifiable to keep the applicant for that purpose behind the bar. So, no custodial interrogation is required and if the applicant is allowed to keep behind the bar, then no purpose would be served.”
