“This is a very serious case in which the judicial officer should be arrested,” said Justice Sarang Kotwal in his March 3 order. The HC refused the magistrate’s counsel Aabad Ponda’s request for a stay of four weeks on the rejection, “considering the gravity of offence and need of custodial interrogation”
Photo for representational purpose
A judicial magistrate first class in Pune district was denied an anticipatory bail plea by the Bombay High Court (HC)n in an alleged bribery case under the Prevention of Corruption Act filed in January.
ADVERTISEMENT
“This is a very serious case in which the judicial officer should be arrested,” said Justice Sarang Kotwal in his March 3 order. The HC refused the magistrate’s counsel Aabad Ponda’s request for a stay of four weeks on the rejection, “considering the gravity of offence and need of custodial interrogation”.
“The investigation agency needs to go deep in the matter,” said Justice Kotwal.
The HC was of the opinion that the woman magistrate was “occupying a very responsible position’’ and added that “society’s faith in judicial system should not be shaken by such instances”, stated a report in The Times of India.
An ‘associate’ of the magistrate, also a woman, had allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe on her behalf for dismissing a criminal complaint against a milk vendor. The magistrate, however, claimed she was living alone with an infant and had relied on the woman, “who won her trust” and helped her find a nanny. Ponda said the woman took advantage of the magistrate’s dependence on her and indulged in the alleged crime which he said came as a “shock” to the magistrate who denied ever demanding a bribe.
On February 23, the sessions court rejected the magistrate’s pre-arrest bail plea. She then moved the HC, where prosecutor S H Yadav opposed her plea. The prosecutor relied on a phone call between the magistrate and the co-accused woman to argue she cannot claim “innocence or ignorance”.
The FIR stated that a woman had visited the milk vendor’s house on January 4 and asked his brother if he knew about a criminal case against him in a court and that the hearing was two days later. She allegedly demanded Rs 5 lakh to have the “serious” case dismissed. They settled at Rs 3 lakh but the complainant said he did not wish to pay any bribe and informed the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) Pune.
During the investigation, a phone call was recorded in which the magistrate was allegedly speaking at the other end. After the conversation, the co-accused allegedly told the complainant to bring the money. On January 14, he went to ACB office with Rs 50,000 and the officials mixed fake notes and added anthracin powder and gave it to him. The complainant gave the cash to the woman in his car and she was arrested. ACB claimed that the co-accused woman had accepted the money on behalf of the magistrate. The HC, in its order, said prima facie the phone conversation “at least at this stage, does indicate the applicant’s involvement in the case”.
“Investigation shows that there were 147 phone calls exchanged between the two,” the court added.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
