SC Grants Bail Because Accused Spent Over 1.5 Years in Custody After Charge Sheet Filing

Hanumant Jagannath Nazirkar Vs State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court of India)

The case concerns a Deputy Director of Town Planning, Amaravati, who was accused of possessing disproportionate assets worth ₹82,38,34,941 during the period from 23 January 1986 to 18 June 2020. Following a complaint made to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), a discreet inquiry and later an open inquiry were conducted. Based on the inquiry, FIR No. 736 of 2020 was registered for offences under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied provisions of the IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed.

Read Bombay HC Judgment in this case: Bombay HC Denies Bail as Disproportionate Assets Allegedly Exceeded Known Income by 1152%

A separate case, Crime No. 644 of 2020, was registered on the complaint of a fruit vendor who alleged that a co-accused had obtained blank stamp papers and cheques from him and other vendors and used them to create documents showing inflated fruit sale transactions. According to the prosecution, these documents were intended to justify the assets under scrutiny in the disproportionate assets investigation.

Before the Bombay High Court, the applicant sought bail in both cases. He contended that he had been in custody for more than a year, the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed. He argued that the ACB had wrongly rejected substantial income sources of himself and his family members, overvalued agricultural assets, and incorrectly considered current market values. He further claimed that assets inherited by his wife from her father had not been properly taken into account. The applicant also submitted that the prosecution had cited more than 80 witnesses and that the trial would take considerable time.