Bombay High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail of Judicial Magistrate's Accused of Taking Bribe

Bombay High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail of Judicial Magistrate's Accused of Taking Bribe

The Bombay High Court (HC) on 3 March 2021, in the case titled Archana Deepak Jatkar (Applicant) v. State of Maharashtra (Respondent) rejected an anticipatory bail application of a Judicial Magistrate who was accused of taking bribe and charged under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act).

Justice Sarang V Kotwal noted while considering the serious charges against the Judicial Magistrate that there is a need for a thorough investigation in the instant matter. He added that such instances should not be given a light approach as it would shake the faith in the judicial system.

An anticipatory bail application was filed before the HC by Archana Jatkar, who was occupying the post of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadgaon Maval Court. The Magistrate was charged for passing an order in favour of a litigant and she demanded a bribe through her associate.

The First Information Report (FIR) was registered against Jatkar under Sections 7 (public servant being bribed) and 12 (punishment for abetment of offences) of the Act based on the complaint named Swapnil Shevkar (complainant).

The complainant was approached by an associate, named Mhatre who claimed that there was apparently a criminal case filed by Amul Dairy against him.

She told the complainant that a serious offence would be registered against him and his brother. It was stated that they would be arrested and they have to spend a lot of money to engage advocate.

Mhatre claimed that she could manage the Judge and then the case would be dismissed against the complainant. Certain negotiations took place and the amount was fixed at Rs. 3 lakh. But the complainant was reluctant to pay the bribe and he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

The Bureau allegedly spoke to a judicial officer and later Mhatre directed the complainant to bring Rs. 50,000. Keeping the bureau in the loop, the complainant handed over the money to Mhatre.

The bureau officers noted the currency notes number and thereafter Mhatre was arrested red-handed with those notes. Mhatre, whose actual name was Shubhavari Gaikwad claimed to have accepted money on behalf of the Judicial Magistrate.

Senior Advocate representing the Judicial Magistrate stated that Gaikwad was hired by her as a help to find out someone to take care of her 11-month-old baby and the Judicial Magistrate started relying upon Gaikwad.

It was further stated that the Magistrate was not aware of Gaikwad's activities and it was a rude shock to her when she came to know that she has been implicated under false charges.

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that at this stage, the conduct of raid and arrest of accused at the time of accepting notes cannot be doubted. The investigation showed that there was 147 telephonic conversation calls exchanged between the Magistrate and Gaikwad.

The HC heard both the parties in detail and relied upon the conversation that took place between Jatkar and Gaikwad which was recorded while investigating the complaint.

The Court ordered, "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 the judicial system should not be shaken by such instances. The investigating agency needs to go deep in to the matter. No case for anticipatory bail is made out. The application is rejected."

The Court noted in the recorded conversation that the Magistrate said that the case could be kept pending for years together. A specific assurance was given by the Magistrate that the case would be cleared.

Justice Kotwal rejected the anticipatory bail application and recorded in the order that "These conversations are a strong indication of Applicant's involvement in the offence. Therefore considering the gravity of offence, an order of anticipatory bail cannot be passed in her favour. Her custodial interrogation is also necessary to find out the exact nature of the relation between both the accused and as to whether in any other case these two have acted similarly."

The HC passed its order on humanitarian grounds and permitted the Judicial Magistrate to have access to her 11-month-old baby in the event she is arrested.

The order reads, "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."