JUDGMENT : ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Application for pre- arrest bail. He is the Additional Tehsildar of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, discharging his duties as a public servant. The proceedings relate to C.R. No. 0201/25. The First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) has been lodged on 16 May 2025 at 08.38 hours by the City Chowk Police Station, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The offences alleged are under section 12 and 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’). The Complainant is one Naseer Gani Khan, aged 50 years, who is the person from whom the alleged bribe was demanded at the behest/on behalf of the Applicant, by and through his agents. CASE IN FIR : 2. It appears that the Complainant visited the Tehsil Office where he met one Shivaji Harkal i.e. Clerk working there. There are allegations of demand by the said Shivaji Harkal, who informed the Informant when they met with in order to receive a favourable decision in his case, the said Harkal would have to pay money to the Upper Tehsildar, i.e. the Applicant. Also that the Informant would have to speak to a person named Chavan who looks after the work of the Applicant. It appears that the Complainant had purchased 76.67 sq. mtrs. area of plot in Gat No. 158. Accordingly, the name of the Complainant had been registered as per the mutation entry No. 13099. However, by registering the mutation entry it was registered as 68 Sq. mtrs. as against 76.67 sq. mtrs. i.e. about 9 sq. mtrs. less and such mutation entry was approved. On 13 May 2025 that the Complainant lodged the Complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ‘ACB’) against the demand of the bribe amount. Acting upon the said Compliant, it was registered by the ACB in presence of two panchas and a trap panchanama was conducted on 13 May 2025 at 17.00 hours. The Complainant along with one Nitin Chavan, working with/known to the Applicant went to the Tea Stall. There the alleged demand of the bribe amount of Rs. 60,000/- per file, totaling to Rs. 3,00,000/- was made to be given to the Applicant. SUBMISSIONS : 3. Mr. The Complainant along with one Nitin Chavan, working with/known to the Applicant went to the Tea Stall. There the alleged demand of the bribe amount of Rs. 60,000/- per file, totaling to Rs. 3,00,000/- was made to be given to the Applicant. SUBMISSIONS : 3. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant would at the very outset submit that through the FIR a false case has been registered against the Applicant to frame him/falsely implicate him and malign his reputation and career. This is only because the case of the Complainant’s son with regard to a file pertaining to correction in the area of plot or land for purpose of alteration in the mutation entry was rejected by the Applicant by an order dated 25 March 2025, for which, a Complaint was lodged with the ACB on 13 May 2025. There is no demand nor acceptance qua the present Applicant. There is no work pending with the present Applicant as far as the Complainant is concerned. The case was registered by the Complainant with the ACB only on a mere suspicion to demand bribe for his work to be done. He would submit that four demand verification traps have failed. Even if the private person did accept the bribe amount but that was not for and/or on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant has not played any role in either instigating and/or inducing the Complainant to hand over such bribe amount of Rs. 60,000/- per file,there being five files in total making the amount at Rs. 3,00,000/- to the private person as noted in the FIR. The Complaint has been lodged only with an intent to take revenge because of the adverse decision on the file of the Complainant’s son which came to be taken on 25 March 2025. The FIR, according to the Applicant, contains general and/or vague allegations, thus there is no satisfaction of the basic ingredients required to be fulfilled under Sections 12 and 7(a) of the PC Act. Mr. Deshmukh would place reliance on an additional affidavit filed by the Applicant dated 14 June 2025. By such affidavit, he places on record inter-alia the decision dated 25 March 2025 passed by the Applicant in his capacity as Upper Tahsildar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar whereby the decision on the file of the Applicant in regard to the mutation entries concerning the plot of land has been rejected. By such affidavit, he places on record inter-alia the decision dated 25 March 2025 passed by the Applicant in his capacity as Upper Tahsildar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar whereby the decision on the file of the Applicant in regard to the mutation entries concerning the plot of land has been rejected. He would reiterate that it is only to avenge the such rejection, that the Complaint by the Complainant was filed and that too much belatedly on 16 May 2025 pursuant to which the FIR was lodged. There is absolutely no explanation on such inordinate delay in lodging the said FIR which raises suspicion against the investigating agency who is acting in collusion and connivance with the Complainant, with an intent to falsely implicate the Applicant. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Narwade, learned APP, would strongly oppose the submissions of Mr. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel. Relying on case diary/investigation papers he would submit that the Applicant has placed on record only a part of the decision dated 25 March 2025 taken by the Applicant in rejecting the Application of the Complainant as noted above. He would submit that pursuant to such decision another decision dated 25 April 2025 has been taken by the Applicant which is placed on record to reiterate the said rejection of the Complainant’s Application already taken place on 25 March 2025. However, by the said order of 25 April 2025, it is added that under the provisions of Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, an appeal can be preferred against such decision. This is rather surprising that after the decision of 25 March 2025, another decision came to be passed after about one month on 25 April 2025. He would submit that it is only after such events, that the Complainant got suspicious and approached the ACB pursuant to which the trap was laid so as to get to the root of the matter. Mr. Narwade would further submit that the modus operandi through such trap was that one of the persons closely working with the Applicant in the name of Nitin Chavan who was acting as an agent used to accept bribe amounts along with another private person in the name of Sohel Bahashwan who then used to handover the same to the Applicant. Narwade would further submit that the modus operandi through such trap was that one of the persons closely working with the Applicant in the name of Nitin Chavan who was acting as an agent used to accept bribe amounts along with another private person in the name of Sohel Bahashwan who then used to handover the same to the Applicant. During the course of investigation, the CCTV footage of the Tehsil Office was examined for the period 13 May 2025 to 15 May 2025. It was revealed that on two occasions the Applicant was handed over a bundle of currency notes by Nitin Chavan which was apparent from such CCTV footage. 5. Pertinent it is to note that the present Applicant was involved in another Crime No. 118/2018 which was pending sanction to be accorded against the Applicant before Kotwali Police station Ahilyanagar. It is submitted that though the sanction was turned down initially it is pending with the appropriate/competent authority. Also there appears to be another FIR dated 24 July 2018 at 19:49 hrs in crime no 0502 registered for alleged offences under Sections 13 (1) read with Section 7 of the PC Act where the demand of bribe amount by the present Applicant was stated to be Rs. 8,00,000/-. Moreover, there is an inquiry into the disproportionate assets since three complainants were registered at the ACB office according to which the Applicant demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on different counts in regard to the work pertaining to correction in mutation entries in the revenue record etc. The CCTV footage would clearly show that the said Nitin Chavan though camaflouged as a private person was constantly seen in the CCTV footage entering into the office of the Applicant. In fact, there are footages, photographs of the Complainant also being seen along with the Applicant and the said private person. Also the private person is seen handing over cash to the Applicant in some of the photographs. This would also reveal some unknown persons coming in the chamber of the Applicant and keeping currency notes in his drawer. In fact, there are footages, photographs of the Complainant also being seen along with the Applicant and the said private person. Also the private person is seen handing over cash to the Applicant in some of the photographs. This would also reveal some unknown persons coming in the chamber of the Applicant and keeping currency notes in his drawer. It is rather strange that such private persons whether Nitin Chavan or the said Sohel were repeatedly seen with the Applicant particularly in his private chamber which would indicate that they were acting as the agents who would demand the amount of bribe at the behest of the Applicant which in this case was to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- per file. There have been several calls between the Applicant and the private person Nitin Chavan in regular intervals which would indicate that he was the right hand man/ man friday of the Applicant. Also the record would indicate that the Applicant is habitually engaged in such acts and enquiries for disproportionate assets are also pending against him. For all such reasons, at the least, custodial interrogation is warranted and the ABA ought to be rejected. FINDINGS : 6. The present FIR clearly indicates that the panchanama of successful trap operation was carried out on 15 May 2025. The private person the said Nitin Chavan had demanded the bribe of Rs.60,000/- for one file and Rs. 3,00,000/- (total) for five files from the Complainant on behalf of the Applicant/Public Servant at the Tea Stall next to the gate of main registry office Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and informed the Complainant to handover said amount of Rs. 60,000/- to one Sohel Bahashwan i.e. the driver in the parking lot. It appears that it is not just one file of the Complainant but also other four files which were pending with this Applicant concerning the friends and relatives of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the said Sohel which was accepted by him in the presence of the panch witness. Such demand was made at the bhest of this Applicant to to be routed through the said private persons. It is in such circumstances, that the Complaint was registered pursuant to which the FIR was lodged. On hearing Mr. 60,000/- to the said Sohel which was accepted by him in the presence of the panch witness. Such demand was made at the bhest of this Applicant to to be routed through the said private persons. It is in such circumstances, that the Complaint was registered pursuant to which the FIR was lodged. On hearing Mr. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, who laid emphasis on the order dated 25 March 2025 by which the Application of the Complainant was rejected, in the context of rectification of the mutation entry that the Application was filed before the Applicant by the complainant. However, Mr. Deshmukh was prima facie unable to point out to the Court to the reason for the Applicant passing yet another order dated 25 April 2025 primarily to convey that an appeal can be filed against the order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar under provisions of Section 247 of the MLRC . It is the subsequent events that led to the trap panchanama on 15 May 2025. Considering the trap being successful between 16.00 hours of 13 May 2025 and 18.00 hours of 15 May 2025 pursuant to which the FIR was lodged on 16 May 2025 at 08.38 hours. Thus, prima facie, at this stage, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that there is gross and inordinate delay in filing the FIR. 7. The investigation through the case diary would reveal that the arrested co-accused Nitin Chavan despite being a private person used to handle the work of the Applicant/accused. It was through him and the other private person Sohel that the graft amount was taken at the behest, knowledge and involvement of the present Applicant. It appears that this is not an isolated case where the name of the Applicant has surfaced in such allegations. Pertinent it is to note that the Applicant has a history of demanding and accepting bribes and has been previously charged under the provisions of PC Act and enquiry is underway regarding his benami properties and disproportionate assets. In this regard, a crime has been registered against him at Ahilyanagar Police Station under Section 7 read with 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the PC Act dated 11 July 2018 where charge-sheet is pending approval of sanction from the competent higher authority. In this regard, a crime has been registered against him at Ahilyanagar Police Station under Section 7 read with 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the PC Act dated 11 July 2018 where charge-sheet is pending approval of sanction from the competent higher authority. In this context the learned Senior Counsel’s submission that sanction has been rejected and the Applicant is framed cannot be considered as determinative, conclusive at such prima facie stage of the proceedings. 8. Further an Open Enquiry No. 8/2019 is in progress against the Applicant regarding disproportionate assets at Ahilyanagar. One of the witnesses during investigation has deposed that the Applicant had demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,00,000/- from him. When he filed a written complaint with the District Collector, the present Applicant gave a decision against such witness on 20 December 2024 which was carried to the High Court where the proceedings are pending for adjudication. 9. Prima facie, the material on record including the CCTV footages and the contents of the trap panchanama would reveal that the Applicant used to demand the bribe from the arrested co-accused Sohel and Nitin Chavan who used to constantly update the Applicant by informing him in his cabin. The co-accused No. 2 i.e. Sohel who was caught raid handed accepting the bribe clearly referred to Nitin Chavan as ‘Garje Saab’s right hand’, to show that the said Nitin Chavan enjoyed the complete confidence of the Applicant. In the footage dated 14 May and 15 May 2025 said Nitin Chavan is clearly seen handing over bundles of cash to the Applicant on 2 occasions which, inter-alia, takes one to the first proviso to Section 17A. In this context it is apposite to refer to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in CBI vs Santosk Karnani & Anr. , ( 2023(3) SCC 622 where the Supreme Court in unequivocal terms holds that prior approval or sanction to investigate such officer in a trap case, is likely to defeat the very purpose of a trap and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the legislature. The said judgment answers the apprehension raised by the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri Deshmukh for the Applicant, on the aspect of want of sanction against the Applicant, which is put to a quietus. The said judgment answers the apprehension raised by the Ld. Senior Counsel Shri Deshmukh for the Applicant, on the aspect of want of sanction against the Applicant, which is put to a quietus. So also, the court may gainfully refer to the decision of this Court in Balasaheb Waman Wankhede v/s State of Maharashtra , 2019 SCC Online Bom. 7029, where in the context of Section 17A of the PC Act in similar facts as this, the court was of the opinion that the protection conferred on a public servant like the Applicant, pursuant to section 17A will be of no assistance, as the amount of bribe was delivered to the middle-men, pursuant to the demand by the Applicant. Thus, at the prima facie stage the modus operandi of the Applicant is quite clear. In such facts and circumstances it is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Deshmukh that there is a CCTV footage in his cabin and thus it is impossible to believe the version of prosecution. These are matters where evidence needs to be appreciated during the trial and the this Court at such preliminary stage of the proceedings is not expected to conduct a mini trial. 10. The factual complexion in the given case, mandates thorough interrogation of this Applicant to unearth these links, connection between the Applicant the private persons, the modus operendi to accept the illegal gratification, how many persons are victims of such apparently organized syndicate and thus to take the matter to its logical conclusion. In such matters it is apposite to advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in Anil Sharma v/s CBI where the Supreme Court emphasizing the importance of custodial interrogation which observed that the success in interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows he is well protected and insulated by a pre arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated as very often, interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The given factual matrix in the given case fits within the well laid parameters of the said judgment. 11. The given factual matrix in the given case fits within the well laid parameters of the said judgment. 11. Before parting let me advert to a thought provoking passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v/s Manmohan Singh , 2012 (3) SCC 64 , where it observed that today “Corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance but threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and rule of law……………..Thus is it is the duty of courts that any anti corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in a fashion to strengthen the fight against corruption.” This is only then we can move towards the eradication of the cancer of corruption from the roots of our society. 12. When the Application was called out at about 4.30 pm on 8 June 2025 for passing orders (as stated in the remark column of today’s cause list- for passing orders) pursuant to the earlier order dated 2 July 2025, certain subsequent events have transpired which have been referred to, in detail in the order of 8 July 2025. Briefly, the Court again expresses its disapproval with the practice adopted by the Applicant to place on record written notes of arguments including the pre-trap panchanama dated 15 May 2025, for the first time today just before passing orders today, that too after the matter was closed for orders on 2 July 2025. Prima facie, there is substance in the submission and strong objection from the learned APP to the effect that such conduct is to be deprecated. Not just that, but it is shocking as to how the Applicant could obtain the pre-trap panchanama even when the charge-sheet is not filed and there is no explanation in this regard coming forth from the Applicant, despite a query from the Court. The learned Advocate for the Applicant has placed on record written notes of arguments just before passing orders today i.e. on 8 July 2025 along with a pre-trap panchanama dated 15 May 2025 and an order dated 19 August 2024 of this Court in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1226/2024 in the matter of one Pankaj V. Jawale, not connected/concerned with the proceedings. A copy of the written notes of arguments with annexures is also tendered to the learned APP who has taken serious objection for the same to be even considered at this belated stage. 13. Having taken serious note of the above, it is evident that the conduct of the Applicant is not free from doubt and does not inspire confidence. In any event, I have carefully and independently perused the written notes of arguments along with the annexures. In my considered view, apart from the fact that the pre-trap panchanama is a part of the investigation material, I do not see any reason which would justify grant of any relief to the Applicant in the present proceedings, as as these aspects are already reflected in my findings above. The order of 19 August 2024 in connected ABA is in completely different facts and circumstances having no bearing on the given factual complexion. 14. A prima facie case under the parameters of the Supreme Court decision in Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and Another , [ (2022) 17 SCC 391 ] , has been made out by the prosecution against the Applicant. For the foregoing reasons as discussed above, the Application is devoid of merit. The prosecution apprehends that considering the influential position of the Applicant and that his whereabouts are unknown, he is attempting to flee from justice. In such factual complexion, custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. Thus, the following order is passed : ORDER ABA NO. 925 of 2025 is Rejected. 15. Needless to mention that the observations are prima facie for the purposes of deciding the ABA. 16. In light of the above, nothing survives in the Criminal Application No. 1961/2025 filed on behalf of the Informant to assist the learned APP, which is accordingly Disposed Of.