-1- 946-BA-1865-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1865 OF 2026 VILAS RAJENDRA MORALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe APP for Respondent - State : Mr. S. A. Gaikwad ..... CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026 PER COURT : 1. The present application seeks regular bail in pursuance of his arrest in Crime No.496 of 2026, registered with Georai Police Station, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed, for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Learned Advocate submits that the present applicant came to be arrested on the date of the incident, i.e. 18.08.2026, and since then he is in custody. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present applicant is serving as Talathi. The complainant had approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the applicant had demanded Rs.70,000/- for not to take any action against his truck vehicle bearing No. MH-23-BK-7897 in connection with the 2026:BHC-AUG:43142 -2- 946-BA-1865-2026 transportation of sand. The said complaint was verified. Trap was arranged at the private office of the applicant, which is situated at Kolher Road, Georai. During the pre-trap proceedings, 140 currency notes of Rs. 500/- each were treated with anthracene powder and their numbers were recorded. The conversation between the complainant and the applicant was recorded. The applicant allegedly accepted the tainted amount and kept it in the left pocket of his trousers. After the pre-arranged signal, the raiding party entered the office. The tainted notes were recovered from the possession of the applicant. Anthracene traces were found on the relevant articles. The digital recording and memory card were seized and sealed. 4. The present offence came to be registered and the applicant came to be arrested and produced before the learned Special Court for remand. Since then, he is in custody. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and there is no direct material against the present applicant. He had no concern with the transportation of sand and had no authority to take action against the truck. It is further submitted that there was no demand or voluntary acceptance of bribe. Mere recovery of currency notes is -3- 946-BA-1865-2026 not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further submitted that the entire alleged amount has already been seized and nothing remains to be recovered from the applicant. 6. He further argues that his bail application was rejected by the Trial Court only on the ground that certain statements of relevant officials and collection of departmental and revenue records were pending at that stage. He now submits that the said statements have already been recorded and there is no further investigation which is pending against the present applicant. He thus prays that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 7. Learned APP for the respondent - State opposed the application. It is submitted that there is a strong case against the applicant and that he has actively participated in the offence. It is further submitted that, if the applicant is released on bail, he is likely to pressurise the complainant and may tamper with the prosecution evidence. The investigation is still in progress. Though the learned Advocate submits that the statements of the officials have been recorded and the departmental and revenue records have been obtained, the documents pertaining to his service record -4- 946-BA-1865-2026 are yet to be collected and that is the part of the investigation which is awaited. He fairly submits that the voice sample of the present applicant has been taken. According to the prosecution, the applicant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.70,000/-, and therefore, considering the seriousness of the offence and the position of the applicant as a public servant, the prosecution has prayed for rejection of the application. 8. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned APP and have perused the entire case papers. 9. In the present case, the prosecution material is not confined to mere recovery of currency notes. The complaint contains a specific allegation of demand of Rs.70,000/-. The demand was allegedly verified. The conversation between the complainant and the applicant was also recorded. The transcript contains discussion regarding payment of Rs.70,000/-. Pre-trap papers show that 140 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were treated with anthracene powder with the same serial numbers being recorded. The very same notes were recovered from the possession of the present applicant. 10. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned APP, even the voice sample of the present applicant has -5- 946-BA-1865-2026 been recorded. The statements of the relevant officials from the department of the applicant have also been recorded and all the other departmental and revenue records have also been collected. The only part of the investigation which is left out is the collection of the documents pertaining to the applicant's service record. In my view, those documents are already in the custody of the Government and therefore they can be directly handed over without any interference from the present applicant. This part of the investigation can be completed even if the applicant is released on bail. 11. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am inclined to allow the present application. Hence, the following order:- ORDER (i) The Bail Application is allowed. (ii) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.0496 of 2026 registered with Georai Police Station, District Beed, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one/two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to the following conditions : a) The applicant shall attend the Trial Court on every date fixed, unless their attendance is specifically exempted. -6- 946-BA-1865-2026 b) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact, threaten, induce or influence the informant or any prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. c) The applicant shall furnish his current residential address and mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court within seven days of release, intimate any change forthwith, and attend the Investigating Officer upon prior written notice if further investigation is required. d) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Trial Court and, if he posses passport, shall deposit the same with the Trial Court within seven days of their release. e) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of a similar nature while on bail. f) Breach of any of the above conditions shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail. g) All observations in this order are prima facie and confined to the decision of this bail application. The Trial Court shall decide the case independently on the evidence led before it. (iii) The Bail Application is disposed of in the above terms. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR) JUDGE Tandale