According to the prosecution, FIR was filed against a MHADA officer Suryakant Deshmukh, who is already arrested, for demanding and accepting a bribe
The special Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court has pulled up the agency for randomly naming a person as an accused, who is a MHADA servant, in an alleged bribery case and had sought his custody, without his name been mentioned in the FIR.
The court gave an earful to the agency and said that in the case where the agency itself was doubtful of the role of the accused, why did they want to humiliate the accused by arresting him. Meanwhile, the court has granted the man protection against his arrest.
According to the prosecution, FIR was filed against a MHADA officer Suryakant Deshmukh, who is already arrested, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.21,000 including Rs.5,000 for vigilance department and Rs.16,000/ as a two per cent of bill amount of contract amount of Rs.8,00,000. The accused Suryakant was caught redhanded while accepting Rs.20,000 the bribe amount. The agency thought even Kishorkumar Katwate, who is an engineer in the Vigilance department in MHADA, is allegedly involved in the scam.
The holiday court earlier while passing orders held that the accused was earlier granted protection against his arrest by the lower court and had asked him to attend the ACB office, as and when called for interrogation and have also produced the documents as and when sought by the agency for investigation.
"It shows that while considering the application it shows that name of accused is not found in FIR. The nature and gravity of accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before an arrest is made and balance is to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of accused."
The court also held that in any case arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court also held, "For the custodial interrogation presence of accused is seems to be necessary. The prosecution claimed that there is circumstantial evidence against the accused but considering the FIR and not having disclosure of accused and mere for circumstantial evidence the anticipatory bail application cannot be rejected. Rather for fair and free investigation accused can be directed to cooperate with the investigation."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Justice")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}