Sessions court rejects bail plea of court clerk arrested by ACB in bribery case

Earlier in the day, Vasudev’s lawyer, Vijay Desai, had submitted before the court that his further custody was not needed as the ACB had collected all the electronic evidence in the case, including his phone, memory cards and voice samples. He also submitted that the ACB’s apprehension that if released, Vasudev may tamper with evidence cannot be accepted as all the necessary evidence have already been collected. He also said that the court can put necessary conditions on him if there are any other apprehensions.

Additional public prosecutor Prabhakar Tarange opposed the plea stating that the prima facie evidence shows that Vasudev had approached the complainant, sharing his number to seek a bribe for a favourable order. He said the messages between Vasudev and the judge show that the latter had informed him to come to his home the next day, and given instructions including that the front door may be locked. The prosecutor said that the ACB’s proposal for action against the judge remains pending in the high court and there is prima facie proof about his involvement which needs to be probed. The prosecutor said that both the accused need to be interrogated together on the calls and messages between them and their roles.

“The case is linked to the judiciary, people impose a lot of trust in the judiciary…there have been similar cases in the past, including in Satara recently. If appropriate action is not taken, it may lead to erosion of trust among the people,” the prosecutor told the court. The investigating officer of the ACB also submitted before the court that while the probe is ongoing, if released, Vasudev may meet the co-accused and hence he should be kept in custody till there is action against the co-accused.

The ACB had arrested Vasudev on November 12 after he allegedly accepted Rs 15 lakh as a bribe from the complainant in a cafe in Chembur, claiming that part of the amount would be paid to the judge for a favourable decision on a case on a civil dispute regarding a forcible possession of land belonging to his company.