905-REVN-541-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 541 OF 2026 CBI, ACB, Mumbai … Applicant VERSUS Vikrant Verma & Anr. … Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Amit Munde, Special P.P. a/w Mr. Deep Shrivastav (DLA, CBI), J.K.Sharma (Senior P.P.), Jai Vohra and Mr. Parikshit Pawar, for Applicant. Mr. Pankaj Savant, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Janhvi Jadhav and Ms. Sharayu Shinde, for Respondent No.1. Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent – State. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w Mr. Abhijit Patil and Ms. Ashwini Jadhav for co-accused- Arvind Semwal. Mr. Shashank Rathaur, PI/IO a/w Mr. Ranjeet K. Pandey, DSP, CBI, ACB, Mumbai. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 8th OCTOBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned Special P.P., learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and learned APP. 2. The challenge in this Revision Application is to the refusal of police custody to respondent No.1. 3. Learned Special P.P. submitted that respondent No.1 was arrested out of the transaction of trap with co-accused but learned Judge has refused police custody without any reasonable ground observing non compliance of Section 17-A of Prevention of Prevention of Corruption act, SONALI SATISH KILAJE Digitally signed by SONALI SATISH KILAJE Date: 2026.10.08 18:25:49 +0530 905-REVN-541-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje 1988 (for short “P.C.Act”). Considering the role of respondent No.1, three days CBI custody of respondent No.1 be granted and impugned order be quashed and set aside. 4. Leaned counsel for respondent No.1 strongly objected to allow the application on the ground that learned Special Judge has passed well reasoned order. The respondent No.1 was in judicial custody for 4 days and thereafter he has been released on bail by the learned Special Judge and after passing the bail order, the prosecution should have been filed cancellation of Bail Application and he cannot be remanded to police custody. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly submitted that if this Court inclines to grant the police custody applicant be released on bail after period of police custody as per order of learned Special Judge. Learned Special P.P., on instructions, submits that if one day CBI custody is granted, would sufficient and thereafter he can be released on bail as per order passed by Special Court. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Though the bail order is passed by the Special Court but respondent No.1 has not be released on bail from jail, hence, the respondent No.1 i.e. Mr. Vikrant Verma is remanded to one day CBI custody and after one day CBI custody, he shall be released on bail as per the order passed by learned Special Court. Learned APP shall inform the Arthur Jail prison to hand over the custody of 905-REVN-541-2026 (CR).doc S.S.Kilaje respondent No.1 to Investigating Officer in present crime and the Investigating Officer shall hand over the custody of the respondent No.1 to the Arthur Road jailer by 2 p.m. tomorrow. The respondent No.1 shall not take plea before any authority that he was not in CBI custody for 24 hours. 6. The Revision Application is allowed and disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)