Bombay HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Judicial Magistrate Accused Of Accepting Bribe

Coverage of this Article

KEY TAKEAWAYS

-One Archana Deepak Jatkar, Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, posted at Wadgaon, Maval Court has been accused of accepting bribe of Rs. 3 lakhs via her co-accused Shubhavari Gaikwad, promising to pass an order in favour of the party.

INTRODUCTION

-The bench of Justice Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal of the Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Judicial Magistrate First Class, currently holding office at Wadgaon, Maval Court, after an allegation of bribery was made to her and her co-accused Shubhavari Gaikwad in the case Archana Deepak Jatkar v. State of Maharashtra. The Judicial Magistrate was booked under Section 7A and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

BACKGROUND

-On the 4th of January, 2021, the brother of a milk-vendor who used to sell milk to Amul Pvt. Ltd. had a visitor by the name Mhatre, who informed him of a court case that had been filed against him and inquired about the appointment of any advocate to represent his brother and himself.

FACTS OF THE CASE

-The 32-year-old milk-vendor, Swapnil Shevkar, had run an Amul milk agency for four years, and were recently at loggerheads with the organization due to some dispute relating to losses.

FURTHER DETAILS

-The prosecution produced before the Court that the real name of the woman introducing herself as Mhatre was actually Shubhavari Gaikwad. In

CONCLUSION

-The prima facie involvement of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Archana Deepak Jatkar in a case involving acceptance of bribery by her co-accused, hinted at by the numerous recorded conversations between the two of them led the Bombay High Court to dismiss the plea for the anticipatory bail sought on grounds that she was unaware of the stance of Gaikwad regarding the bribery in question.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• One Archana Deepak Jatkar, Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, posted at Wadgaon, Maval Court has been accused of accepting bribe of Rs. 3 lakhs via her co-accused Shubhavari Gaikwad, promising to pass an order in favour of the party.
• The complainant did not wish to pay any bribe and approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pune.
• On verifying the story, such Bureau laid a trap and caught Gaikwad red-handedly accepting bribe and booked such Magistrate under Sections 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• The lawyer appearing for the Magistrate claimed she was unaware of such situation, but the prosecutor produced some 147 recorded calls which hinted otherwise.
• Justice Sarang V. Kotwal rejected such application for anticipatory bail claimed by the defendant.

INTRODUCTION

The bench of Justice Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal of the Bombay High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application of Judicial Magistrate First Class, currently holding office at Wadgaon, Maval Court, after an allegation of bribery was made to her and her co-accused Shubhavari Gaikwad in the case Archana Deepak Jatkar v. State of Maharashtra. The Judicial Magistrate was booked under Section 7A and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

The plea for anticipatory bail had been earlier rejected by the Pune Sessions Court by Additional Sessions Judge SR Navandar in the case lodged against her at Dehu road police station by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) under sections 7A and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was after such rejection that an appeal was made before the Bombay High Court for such anticipatory bail.

The Judicial Magistrate and her co-accused were accused for accepting bribes after promising to pass an order in favour of the milk-vendor, Swapnil Shevkar, from whom a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs were claimed, but the deal later got settled for an amount of Rs 3 lakhs, after which such milk-vendor approached the Anti-Corruption Board (ACB) in Pune where the complaints were lodged.

BACKGROUND

On the 4th of January, 2021, the brother of a milk-vendor who used to sell milk to Amul Pvt. Ltd. had a visitor by the name Mhatre, who informed him of a court case that had been filed against him and inquired about the appointment of any advocate to represent his brother and himself. The brother, oblivious of any such Court case, informed the 32-year-old milk-vendor who was asked to meet such woman at one Emerland Hotel. There, the complainant, Swapnil Shevkar was shown court papers relating to the case in question by Mhatre, who pretended to be a stenographer in that very court, and she offered to ‘manage’ such case by influencing the Judge in his favour if she were to be bribed with an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. After much negotiation, the amount was fixed at Rs. 3 lakhs.

Following such conversation, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Board of Pune, where a telephonic conversation was recorded where he was asked to bring money to the court on the 14th of January, 2021. Their officials laid a trap and caught Mhatre in the act of accepting Rs. 2.5 lakhs, red-handedly. It was then found out that she was actually the associate of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Wadgaon, Maval Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The 32-year-old milk-vendor, Swapnil Shevkar, had run an Amul milk agency for four years, and were recently at loggerheads with the organization due to some dispute relating to losses. The Company claimed for an amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs from the vendor, and the remaining equipments at his disposal to be returned to the organisation. The vendor refused to return any of the above, pursuant to which, a private criminal suit was instituted against such vendor by Amul Pvt. Ltd.

This is the case, which was referred to by the co-accused in the Archana Deepak Jatkar case and she explained to the complainant how both he and his brother could land up in jail due to such a serious offence.

FURTHER DETAILS

The prosecution produced before the Court that the real name of the woman introducing herself as Mhatre was actually Shubhavari Gaikwad. Investigation revealed some 147 calls between the Judicial Magistrate and her co-accused which, in a way, formed the basis of the rejection of the anticipatory bail to the Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution claimed that the recorded conversations signify the depth of the involvement of the Magistrate in the act of bribery and no relief should be granted in her favour.

The lawyer representing the Magistrate, Advocate Abaad Ponda, brought to the attention of the Court that the defendant was the mother of an 11-month-old child, and requested that she be granted access to her baby as the investigation ensued. The lawyer further said that the Magistrate, staying in Pune alone with her child needed help from her co-accused in this case to look after the baby, and Gaikwad took advantage of her position to mislead a person into bribing her, the Magistrate not being aware of the entire situation.

The State's counsel SH Yadav cited the January 11, 2021 telephonic conversation to submit that it showed Jatkar's "clear involvement" and she could not claim ignorance in the act of bribery.

The High Court, after hearing both parties and relied on the conversations between Archana and Gaikwad whose records were produced before it, and Justice Kotwal observed that “These conversations are strong indication of Applicant’s involvement in the offence. Therefore, considering the gravity of offence, order of anticipatory bail cannot be passed in her favour. Her custodial interrogation is also necessary to find out the exact nature of relation between both the accused and as to whether in any other case these two have acted similarly.”

The Court passed an order to ensure the Magistrate’s access to her child in the event of her arrest, on humanitarian grounds. The Court said, “in the eventuality of the Applicant’s arrest, the investigating agency shall not deny the Applicant access to her child. All the necessary facilities should be provided to the child when the child is with the Applicant.”

The Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail, saying “The Applicant was occupying a very responsible position. Considering the seriousness of allegations against her it is necessary that the investigation is carried out thoroughly. Society’s faith in judicial system should not be shaken by such instances. The investigating agency needs to go deep in the matter. No case for anticipatory bail is made out. The application is rejected.”

On the prayer of Adv Abaad Ponda for stay of such order for a period of four weeks, the Court rejected such prayer and commented thus, “Considering the gravity of offence and need of custodial interrogation, the prayer is refused.”

CONCLUSION

The prima facie involvement of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Archana Deepak Jatkar in a case involving acceptance of bribery by her co-accused, hinted at by the numerous recorded conversations between the two of them led the Bombay High Court to dismiss the plea for the anticipatory bail sought on grounds that she was unaware of the stance of Gaikwad regarding the bribery in question.

The Court viewed this situation to have the far-reaching impact of shaking the belief of the general public from the judiciary which would result in a tremble in the third leg of our democracy.