Bombay High Court
VILAS RAJENDRA MORALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court allowed bail, finding that the pending service‑record documents could be obtained without the applicant’s custody and imposing conditions to mitigate any risk.
Summary
The applicant, a Talathi, was arrested on 18 August 2026 for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.70,000 in connection with a sand‑transportation case, as recorded in a pre‑trap operation. The prosecution presented recovered anthracene‑treated currency notes, a recorded conversation, and a voice sample linking the applicant to the alleged demand. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the seized money was already recovered, and that the only pending investigation pertained to his service records, which could be obtained without his custody. The State contended that the applicant might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail. The judge held that the material on record was sufficient to proceed but that the outstanding service‑record documents could be obtained without hindering the investigation, and therefore bail could be granted with conditions. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to a personal bond and several restrictive conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a public servant accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act when substantial evidence exists.
- Whether the recovery of tainted currency notes and recorded conversation constitute sufficient material to deny bail.
- Whether the pending collection of the applicant's service records justifies refusal of bail.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 7
Subjects
- bail
- prevention of corruption
- public servant
- bribery
- Section 7
- pre‑trap operation
- evidence tampering
- conditions of bail
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43142
-1-
946-BA-1865-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1865 OF 2026
VILAS RAJENDRA MORALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe
APP for Respondent - State : Mr. S. A. Gaikwad
.....
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
PER COURT :
1. The present application seeks regular bail in pursuance
of his arrest in Crime No.496 of 2026, registered with Georai Police
Station, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed, for the offences punishable under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Learned Advocate submits that the present applicant
came to be arrested on the date of the incident, i.e. 18.08.2026,
and since then he is in custody.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present
applicant is serving as Talathi. The complainant had approached
the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the applicant had
demanded Rs.70,000/- for not to take any action against his truck
vehicle bearing No. MH-23-BK-7897 in connection with the
-2-
946-BA-1865-2026
transportation of sand. The said complaint was verified. Trap was
arranged at the private office of the applicant, which is situated at
Kolher Road, Georai. During the pre-trap proceedings, 140
currency notes of Rs. 500/- each were treated with anthracene
powder and their numbers were recorded. The conversation
between the complainant and the applicant was recorded. The
applicant allegedly accepted the tainted amount and kept it in the
left pocket of his trousers. After the pre-arranged signal, the
raiding party entered the office. The tainted notes were recovered
from the possession of the applicant. Anthracene traces were found
on the relevant articles. The digital recording and memory card
were seized and sealed.
4. The present offence came to be registered and the
applicant came to be arrested and produced before the learned
Special Court for remand. Since then, he is in custody.
5. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated and there is no direct
material against the present applicant. He had no concern with the
transportation of sand and had no authority to take action against
the truck. It is further submitted that there was no demand or
voluntary acceptance of bribe. Mere recovery of currency notes is
-3-
946-BA-1865-2026
not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further submitted that the
entire alleged amount has already been seized and nothing
remains to be recovered from the applicant.
6. He further argues that his bail application was rejected
by the Trial Court only on the ground that certain statements of
relevant officials and collection of departmental and revenue
records were pending at that stage. He now submits that the said
statements have already been recorded and there is no further
investigation which is pending against the present applicant. He
thus prays that the application be allowed and the applicant be
released on bail.
7. Learned APP for the respondent - State opposed the
application. It is submitted that there is a strong case against the
applicant and that he has actively participated in the offence. It is
further submitted that, if the applicant is released on bail, he is
likely to pressurise the complainant and may tamper with the
prosecution evidence. The investigation is still in progress. Though
the learned Advocate submits that the statements of the officials
have been recorded and the departmental and revenue records
have been obtained, the documents pertaining to his service record
-4-
946-BA-1865-2026
are yet to be collected and that is the part of the investigation
which is awaited. He fairly submits that the voice sample of the
present applicant has been taken. According to the prosecution,
the applicant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of
Rs.70,000/-, and therefore, considering the seriousness of the
offence and the position of the applicant as a public servant, the
prosecution has prayed for rejection of the application.
8. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the
learned APP and have perused the entire case papers.
9. In the present case, the prosecution material is not
confined to mere recovery of currency notes. The complaint
contains a specific allegation of demand of Rs.70,000/-. The
demand was allegedly verified. The conversation between the
complainant and the applicant was also recorded. The transcript
contains discussion regarding payment of Rs.70,000/-. Pre-trap
papers show that 140 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination
were treated with anthracene powder with the same serial
numbers being recorded. The very same notes were recovered
from the possession of the present applicant.
10. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the
learned APP, even the voice sample of the present applicant has
-5-
946-BA-1865-2026
been recorded. The statements of the relevant officials from the
department of the applicant have also been recorded and all the
other departmental and revenue records have also been collected.
The only part of the investigation which is left out is the collection
of the documents pertaining to the applicant's service record. In
my view, those documents are already in the custody of the
Government and therefore they can be directly handed over
without any interference from the present applicant. This part of
the investigation can be completed even if the applicant is released
on bail.
11. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined
to allow the present application. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Bail Application is allowed.
(ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.0496 of
2026 registered with Georai Police Station, District Beed, for
the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one/two solvent sureties
in the like amount, subject to the following conditions :
a) The applicant shall attend the Trial Court on every date
fixed, unless their attendance is specifically exempted.
-6-
946-BA-1865-2026
b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact,
threaten, induce or influence the informant or any
prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
c) The applicant shall furnish his current residential
address and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer
and the Trial Court within seven days of release,
intimate any change forthwith, and attend the
Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further
investigation is required.
d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior
permission of the Trial Court and, if he posses passport,
shall deposit the same with the Trial Court within seven
days of their release.
e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of
a similar nature while on bail.
f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the
prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.
g) All observations in this order are prima facie and
confined to the decision of this bail application. The
Trial Court shall decide the case independently on the
evidence led before it.
(iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
JUDGE
Tandale
Checking your session…