Bombay High Court
CBI,ACB, MumbaiversusVikrant Verma
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court set aside the order refusing police custody and remanded the respondent to one day of CBI custody, after which he shall be released on bail as ordered by the Special Court.
Summary
The CBI filed a criminal revision challenging the Special Judge's refusal to remand respondent Vikrant Verma to police custody under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that the respondent, arrested in a trap operation, should be placed in CBI custody for three days and that the judge's order lacked reasonable ground. The respondent contended that having been released on bail, he could not be sent back to police custody and that the judge's order was well‑reasoned. The Court observed that despite the bail order, the respondent had not yet been released from jail and therefore could be remanded for one day to CBI custody, after which he would be released on bail as per the Special Court's order. Accordingly, the revision was allowed, the refusal of police custody was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to be handed over to the investigating officer for a one‑day CBI custody before being released on bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the refusal to grant police custody to the respondent was justified under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Whether a person who has been granted bail can be subsequently remanded to police custody.
- Whether the Special Judge's order denying police custody can be set aside on revision.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 17-A
Subjects
- police custody
- CBI custody
- bail
- revision
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 17-A
- remand
- criminal procedure
Judgment
905-REVN-541-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 541 OF 2026
CBI, ACB, Mumbai … Applicant
VERSUS
Vikrant Verma & Anr. … Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Amit Munde, Special P.P. a/w Mr. Deep Shrivastav (DLA, CBI),
J.K.Sharma (Senior P.P.), Jai Vohra and Mr. Parikshit Pawar, for Applicant.
Digitally signed
SONALI SATISH
by SONALI
SATISH Date:
KILAJE
2026.10.08
Mr. Pankaj Savant, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Janhvi Jadhav and Ms.
KILAJE 18:25:49
+0530
Sharayu Shinde, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w Mr. Abhijit Patil and Ms. Ashwini
Jadhav for co-accused- Arvind Semwal.
Mr. Shashank Rathaur, PI/IO a/w Mr. Ranjeet K. Pandey, DSP, CBI, ACB,
Mumbai.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Special P.P., learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.1 and learned APP.
2. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the refusal of
police custody to respondent No.1.
3. Learned Special P.P. submitted that respondent No.1 was
arrested out of the transaction of trap with co-accused but learned Judge
has refused police custody without any reasonable ground observing non
compliance of Section 17-A of Prevention of Prevention of Corruption act,
Page 1 of 3
905-REVN-541-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
1988 (for short “P.C.Act”). Considering the role of respondent No.1, three
days CBI custody of respondent No.1 be granted and impugned order be
quashed and set aside.
4. Leaned counsel for respondent No.1 strongly objected to allow
the application on the ground that learned Special Judge has passed well
reasoned order. The respondent No.1 was in judicial custody for 4 days
and thereafter he has been released on bail by the learned Special Judge
and after passing the bail order, the prosecution should have been filed
cancellation of Bail Application and he cannot be remanded to police
custody. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly submitted that if this
Court inclines to grant the police custody applicant be released on bail
after period of police custody as per order of learned Special Judge.
Learned Special P.P., on instructions, submits that if one day CBI custody is
granted, would sufficient and thereafter he can be released on bail as per
order passed by Special Court.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Though the bail order is
passed by the Special Court but respondent No.1 has not be released on
bail from jail, hence, the respondent No.1 i.e. Mr. Vikrant Verma is
remanded to one day CBI custody and after one day CBI custody, he shall
be released on bail as per the order passed by learned Special Court.
Learned APP shall inform the Arthur Jail prison to hand over the custody of
Page 2 of 3
905-REVN-541-2026 (CR).doc
S.S.Kilaje
respondent No.1 to Investigating Officer in present crime and the
Investigating Officer shall hand over the custody of the respondent No.1 to
the Arthur Road jailer by 2 p.m. tomorrow. The respondent No.1 shall not
take plea before any authority that he was not in CBI custody for 24 hours.
6. The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.