Bombay HC grants interim bail to accused amid bribery allegations against police

Bombay HC directs Mumbai police to get call records, WhatsApp data of cheating case accused alleging ₹50 lakh bribe demand. Court grants him interim bail for 6 weeks due to serious allegations. Next hearing on May 3.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on April 5 directed the Mumbai police to procure call detail records and WhatsApp messages/calls of an Ahmedabad resident accused in a cheating case after he alleged that the investigating officer had demanded a bribe of ₹50 lakh from his family using his phone. Bhairaram Saraswat, 26, also alleged that he was tortured by police officers while in judicial custody after being arrested on March 19.

HT Image

A division bench comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Manjusha Deshpande granted Saraswat interim bail for six weeks, since the allegations against the police officers are serious and necessitate further investigation. “Prima facie, it appears that the police have not complied with the provisions of law and, as such, there is substance in the allegations made by the petitioner,” the court said.

Saraswat, who runs a small hardware shop in Ahmedabad, had filed a writ petition challenging his arrest by the Mumbai police and subsequent remand to judicial custody. He contended that his arrest was illegal as the police failed to comply with Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which mandates serving a notice before making an arrest in cases where the offence is punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment. Notably, the petitioner was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) registered on March 11.

Advocate Mudit Jain, representing Saraswat, argued that the police did not serve the Section 41A notice until after the petitioner was brought to Mumbai from Ahmedabad. He highlighted the absence of proper documentation and notification of the grounds for arrest.

Furthermore, Jain asserted that the investigating officer utilised Saraswat’s phone for nearly 10 days, engaging in conversations with his family and allegedly demanding a bribe of ₹50 lakh to settle the matter.

In response, chief public prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar claimed that the Section 41A notice was served to Saraswat on the day of his arrest. However, the court cast doubt on the police’s assertion considering the circumstances of the arrest and the seriousness of the allegations against law enforcement. In light of the prima facie violations of legal provisions, the court granted Saraswat interim bail for six weeks on a cash bond of ₹25,000.

The case is next slated for hearing on May 3.