Bombay HC denies pre-arrest bail to sessions court judge booked for bribery

Mumbai, Mar 17 (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Monday refused pre-arrest bail to a sessions court judge booked in a bribery case.
Satara District and Sessions Judge Dhananjay Nikam was booked by the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 5 lakh to grant bail in a cheating case.
A single bench of Justice N R Borkar, which had heard the matter in chamber as it involved a judicial officer, rejected the application saying it was not inclined to grant any relief. A copy of the detailed order will be available later.
Nikam had approached HC in January seeking anticipatory bail claiming innocence and that he was implicated in the case.
The petition, filed through advocate Viresh Purwant, said the FIR does not show any direct demand or acceptance of money by Nikam. It claimed he was neither aware of meetings between the complainant and other accused nor that the complainant was related to the accused seeking bail.
The plea further said Nikam was on leave or deputation on key dates, which raises doubts about the allegations.
As per the complaint lodged by a woman, her father, a civilian defence employee, is in judicial custody for allegedly cheating someone under the pretext of offering a government job.
After a lower court denied him bail, the woman filed a fresh bail application in the Satara sessions court, which was to be heard by Nikam.
The ACB alleged that two private individuals, Kishor Sambhaji Kharat from Mumbai and Anand Mohan Kharat from Satara, demanded Rs 5 lakh from the woman at Nikam's behest for a favourable order.
The ACB claimed the bribe demand was verified during their investigation between December 3 and 9, 2024 confirming that Nikam, in collusion with the Kishor Kharat and Anand Kharat, sought the bribe.
The ACB has booked Nikam, Kishor Kharat, Anand Kharat and an unidentified individual under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Nikam, in his petition, said he neither avoided hearing the bail application nor made any promise of favourable orders. The petition also claimed no such bail orders were passed during the period.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)