"Society's faith in judiciary should not be shaken:" Bombay High Court rejects anticipatory bail to Judicial Magistrate accused of taking bribe

The Bombay High Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a judicial officer accused of accepting bribe for passing a favourable order ( Archana Deepak Jatkar v. State of Maharashtra ).

. Justice Sarang V Kotwal observed that considering the seriousness of the allegations, a thorough investigation would be required in the matter and such instances should not be allowed to shake the faith in judicial system.

. The Court was considering the anticipatory bail application of Archana Jatkar, who at the relevant time was occupying post of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadgaon Maval Court.

The allegations were that for passing an order in favour of a litigant, she demanded bribe through her associate.

. "The Applicant was occupying a very responsible position . Considering the seriousness of allegations against her, it is necessary that the investigation is carried out thoroughly. Society’s faith in judicial system should not be shaken by such instances. The investigating agency needs to go deep in the matter. No case for anticipatory bail is made out. The application is rejected," the Court ordered. . The First Information Report against Jatkar was registered under Sections 7 (public servant being bribed) and 12 (punishment for abetment of offences) of the Prevention of Corruption Act based on a complaint of one Swapnil Shevkar.

. Shevkar was approached by the associate, who called herself Mhatre and and who claimed that there was apparently a criminal case filed by Amul Dairy against him.

. 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 was also told that he would have to spend a lot of money for engaging an advocate and finding sureties.

She categorically stated that she could manage the judge and then the case would be dismissed.

. After some negotiations, the amount for carrying out the work was fixed at Rs. 3 lakh. However, Shevkar was reluctant to pay the bribe. So he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pune.

The Bureau allegedly spoke on the telephone to someone who seemed to be the judicial officer and after this conversation, Mhatre directed Shevkar to bring Rs. 50,000 in cash.

. Keeping ACB in the loop, Shevkar handed over the “cash” to Mhatre. The number on the currency notes handed over to Shevkar was noted by the ACB, and thereafter Mhatre was arrested red-handed with those notes.

Mhatre, whose actual name was Shubhavari Gaikwad claimed to have accepted money on behalf of the Judicial Magistrate.

. Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda appearing for the Judicial Magistrate submitted that Gaikwad was hired by her as a help to find out someone to take care of her 11-month-old baby. Jatkar began relying upon Gaikwad and trusted her, it was submitted.

Ponda claimed that the Magistrate was not aware of her activities and it was a rude shock to her when she came to know that she has been implicated under false charges.

. The Additional Public Prosecutor SH Yadav submitted that at this stage, the conduct of raid and arrest of accused at the time of accepting notes cannot be doubted.

The investigation showed that there were 147 telephonic conversation calls exchanged between the the Magistrate and Gaikwad.

. After hearing both parties, the Court specifically relied upon the conversation which took place between Jatkar and Gaikwad which was recorded while investigating the complaint.

. In another recorded conversation, the Court noted that the applicant had told Mhatre/ Gaikwad that Shevkar’s case would not stand once she rejected it.

She added that the case could be kept pending for years together. In fact, in that conversation there was specific assurance given by Jatkar that the case would be cleared, the Court noted.

. "These conversations are strong indication of Applicant’s involvement in the offence. Therefore considering the gravity of offence, order of anticipatory bail cannot be passed in her favour. 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," Justice Kotwal recorded in the order while rejecting the plea for anticipatory bail.

. However, the High Court, on humanitarian grounds, allowed Jatkar to have access to her 11-month-old baby in the event she is arrested.

"...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,” the order said.

. [Read Order]

"Society's faith in judiciary should not be shaken:" Bombay High Court rejects anticipatory bail to Judicial Magistrate accused of taking bribe

Neha Joshi

Related Stories