Bombay High Court

NITIN LAMIKANTRAO APASINGIKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The Court held that there are good grounds to be dealt with in appeal, thereby allowing the applications, suspending the sentences and granting bail.

Summary

Three accused—Ashok Pamajee Borawake, Nitin Laxmikantrao Apasingikar and Rajendrakumar Nanarao Patil—were convicted by a Special Judge in Latur under Sections 7, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe in connection with a sale‑deed transaction. While on bail they filed criminal applications seeking suspension of their sentences pending appeal, contending that the alleged demand was merely for sale‑deed expenses, that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and that key evidence such as voice recordings was unreliable. The State argued that the prosecution’s evidence, especially the testimonies of the complainant and the shadow panch, was consistent and convincing. The Court examined the evidentiary deficiencies, including the complainant’s admission that the amount was for expenses, the shadow panch’s inability to clearly hear the conversation, and the unsealed condition of the voice recorder, finding reasonable doubt about the existence of a bribe and the alleged connivance among the accused. Concluding that there were substantial grounds for the pending appeal, the Court allowed the applications, suspended the sentences, and granted bail on a personal bond with sureties. The accused were directed to appear before the trial court periodically and not to commit any criminal activity.

Issues considered

Whether the demand for Rs.25,000 was a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act or merely an expense for a sale‑deed
Whether the prosecution evidence, including the voice recordings and witness testimonies, is sufficient to sustain the convictions
Whether the sentences should be suspended and bail granted pending the disposal of the pending criminal appeals

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 7

Subjects

Prevention of Corruption Act
bribe
corruption
bail
suspension of sentence
criminal appeal
evidentiary doubt
voice recorder tampering
sale deed

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43070

CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3832 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.773 OF 2026

Ashok Pamajee Borawake
Age: 60 years, Occu.: Retired,
R/o. Rahul Colony, Satwawadi,
Hadapsar, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Latur. .. Respondent
…
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3830 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.771 OF 2026

Nitin Laxmikantrao Apasingikar
Age: 58 years, Occu.Agri., & Business,
R/o. Kapadline, Ausa, Tq. Ausa,
District Latur. .. Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Latur. .. Respondent
…
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3831 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.772 OF 2026

Rajendrakumar Nanarao Patil
Age: 51 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Deputy Superintendent
Office Ausa, Tq. Ausa,
District Latur. .. Applicant
CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-2-

Versus

The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Latur. .. Respondent

…
Mr. Girish K. Naik – Thigle, Advocate for the applicants in all the
applications.
Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, APP for respondent/State in all the
applications.
...

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
Reserved on : 22.09.2026
Pronounced on : 23.09.2026

ORDER :-

1. All above three applications have been filed with a prayer for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail in consequence to the

judgment and order of conviction dated 07.09.2026 rendered by the

learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge-2 in Special (ACB)

Case No.17 of 2015.

2. Learned Counsel for the applicants in all the applications would

submit that the applicants herein faced prosecution for the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to him, the

prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the applicants by

proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, at the
CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-3-

outset, there was no bribe demanded by accused and what was asked

was expenses towards sale-deed, but the same construed as demand

of illegal gratification and false complaint has been filed by

complainant and even entertained. He pointed out that even there is

delay of a month in filing complaint. Moreover, there is no sufficient

corroboration to the testimony of complainant through shadow

panch, who is also a crucial witness for prosecution being

independent witness. He pointed out that though exercise of

recording conversation was undertaken, there are other voices heard

during the conversation and as such prosecution could not prove that

the voice was only and only of accused. He further pointed out that it

has also emerged in the trial that the voice recorder was kept in an

unsealed condition for a period of two years, regarding which there is

admission by prosecution witnesses. He pointed out that there are

vital admissions by complainant, shadow panch as well as sanctioning

authority, which itself render prosecution story seriously doubtful.

Lastly, he submitted that alleged demand was by accused No.2 and

recovery of currency is from accused No.3. However, there is no

evidence to show that these accused persons were acting in

connivance with each other. Consequently, he submits that there are

several doubts and fatal lacunas in the prosecution story, which could

be dealt in appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment
CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-4-

and order of conviction, but as same would take sufficiently long to

be heard and decided, relief of suspension of sentence and grant of

bail is urged for.

3. Per contra, learned APP for the respondent/State in all the

applications would justify the order of conviction. It is submitted that

there is cogent, reliable, convincing and moreover, consistent

evidence of prosecution witnesses, especially, that of complainant and

shadow panch. According to learned APP, learned Trial Court has

committed no error in appreciating such evidence while upholding

the guilt of the accused. For such reasons, application is sought to be

rejected.

4. Heard. Perused the record. Apparently, all the three accused

were tried vide Special (ACB) Case No.17 of 2015 on charge of

commission of offence under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1)(d),

13(2) of the P.C. Act.

5. In nutshell, case of prosecution in Trial Court was that

complainant Santosh and his brother has carried out sale transaction

of land on 20.01.2015 vide registered sale deed. It is the case of

prosecution that, on 12.01.2015, Santosh approached accused No.3

Nitin, who was a stamp vendor and gave him Rs.36,000/- towards
CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-5-

expenses of sale-deed. On 20.01.2015 Santosh demanded copy of

registered sale-deed from accused No.2 Rajendrakumar, who was

working as a clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar and it is alleged that

accused No.2 had asked Santosh to come on the next day, but it is

alleged that he avoided to give the copy. It is further case of

prosecution that whenever accused No.2 was approached, he used to

say that he has not received Rs.25,000/- and unless said amount is

paid, original copy of sale-deed cannot be given. This demand of

Rs.25,000/- according to prosecution is bribe amount. On receipt of

complaint from Santosh, ACB authorities planned and executed trap

and finally charge-sheeted all three accused and Trial Court accepted

the prosecution story and vide judgment and order dated 07.09.2026

convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for offence under Section 7 read with

Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. act, whereas accused No.3

came to be convicted for offence under Section 7 read with 12 of the

P.C. Act. This judgment and order of conviction is challenged by

filing criminal appeal and during its pendency, instant applications for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail are urged for.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicants has primarily urged for

relief on the ground that there was no reference of demand of bribe,

but what was sought was towards the expenses for execution of the
CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-6-

sale deed, which has been misconstrued as a demand for bribe. He

would point out that even complainant has admitted in his

substantive evidence to that extent. He has further pointed out that

there is no material to connect accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 with the

alleged offence. Even though the demand was allegedly raised by

accused No. 2, the amount was handed over to accused No. 3.

According to him, there was, in fact, no demand of bribe. These,

according to him, are among the several grounds that create doubt

about the prosecution case. If demand of bribe itself is rendered

doubtful, then definitely it goes to the root of the prosecution case

and to ascertain whether there is good ground to be dealt in appeal,

which is yet to be heard, evidence on record is visited. Evidence of

complainant Santosh PW1 is at Exhibit-20, that of shadow panch PW2

Jyotiba is at Exhibit-35 and forensic analyzer is examined as PW3,

whereas sanctioning authority is PW4 and PW5 is the investigating

officer.

7. From the testimony of complainant, as pointed out, it is

emerging that on 12.01.2015, he had approached accused No.2, but

what he deposes about is that he gave Rs.36,000/- towards expenses

of sale-deed. Even in paragraph No.3 of his examination-in-chief he

speaks about accused No.2 saying that he did not receive expenses
CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-7-

towards registration of sale deed i.e. to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

Therefore, prima facie it appears that amount demanded was towards

expenses of sale transaction.

8. Further, as submitted, PW2 shadow panch, who is considered

as a crucial and independent witness for corroborating the testimony

of complainant, has admitted that he could not clearly hear the

conversation between accused Nos.2 and 3.

9. Further, again as pointed out, very sanctioning authority PW4

has admitted in cross-examination that original sale-deed was already

returned to the complainant and had this fact being brought to the

notice, he would not have accorded sanction to prosecution.

10. Yet another feature of this case, as pointed out, is PW3 forensic

analyzer has admitted in his cross-examination that there were

multiple voices heard during conversation and its analysis is not done

and further, the voice recorder was kept in unsealed condition.

Therefore, possibility of tampering has not been completely ruled out.

11. Further, most crucial aspect which is coming from the

testimony of Investigating Officer is that he personally did not seen

tainted currency in the custody of accused.
CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-8-

12. Thus, indeed, there are good grounds to be dealt in appeal, as

primarily doubt is raised about demand of bribe itself. Accused No.2

is said to have raised demand, but witness admit that he spoke about

expenses towards sale-deed transaction. Even though demand is

attributed to accused No.1, recovery is said to be from accused No.3

and therefore, there must be material on record to connect accused

Nos.1, 2 and 3 to show that they had connived and acted together.

Hence, there being good grounds to dealt in appeal, the relief as

prayed deserves to be granted. Hence, the following order is passed :-

ORDER

I. Criminal Applications stand allowed.

II. The substantive sentences imposed upon the applicants, namely,
Ashok Pamajee Borawake in Criminal Application No.3832 of
2026, Nitin Laxmikantrao Apasingikar in Criminal Application
No.3830 of 2026 and Rajendrakumar Nanarao Patil in Criminal
Application No.3831 of 2026, in Special (ACB) Case No.17 of
2015 by the learned Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge-2,
Latur, stand suspended till the final hearing and disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.773 of 2026, Criminal Appeal No.771 of
2026 and Criminal Appeal No.772 of 2026, respectively.

III. The applicants be released on P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties each in
the like amount.
CriAppln-3862-2026, 3830-2026, 3831-2026
-9-

IV. The applicants shall not commit any criminal activity.

V. The applicants shall remain present before the learned trial
Judge once in six months, till final hearing and disposal of the
appeals, commencing from the date they tender bail papers and
thereafter, the trial Judge to fix dates for their subsequent
appearances.

VI. In case of two consecutive defaults on the part of the applicants
to remain present before the trial court, the trial court to inform
this court about the same and in that eventuality, the
prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for
cancellation of bail granted to the applicants.

VII. Bail before the trial court.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

scm

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…