Hanumant Jagannath Nazirkar Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
The applicant, a Deputy Director of Town Planning, Amaravati, sought bail in two criminal cases. The first case (Crime No. 736 of 2020) was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for offences under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 109 of the IPC, based on allegations that he had amassed assets worth ₹82.38 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income during the period from 23 January 1986 to 18 June 2020. The second case (Crime No. 644 of 2020) was registered for offences under Sections 417, 468, 471, 477 read with Section 34 of the IPC, based on allegations that false and inflated documents relating to fruit transactions were created to justify assets under investigation by the ACB.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Grants Bail Because Accused Spent Over 1.5 Years in Custody After Charge Sheet Filing
The applicant contended that he had remained in custody for over a year, the investigation was complete, and charge sheets had been filed. He argued that the allegations in the Baramati case formed part of the larger disproportionate assets investigation. He claimed that the ACB had wrongly rejected substantial income sources of himself and his family members, overvalued agricultural properties, and incorrectly adopted current market values for assets. He also contended that assets inherited by his wife from her father had not been properly considered. According to the applicant, there was no risk of witness tampering and the trial, involving more than 80 witnesses, would take considerable time.
