Kiran Raj

The Bombay High Court has directed a branch of HDFC Bank in Satara to provide CCTV footage from December 9, 2024, to a District and Sessions Judge implicated in a bribery case. The footage is intended to assist the accused judge, who is seeking anticipatory bail, in establishing his defense against allegations of soliciting a bribe for granting bail in a cheating case.

The prosecution alleged that the accused judge, Dhananjay L. Nikam, solicited a bribe of ₹5 lakh through intermediaries in exchange for granting bail to a complainant in a cheating case. According to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), two individuals, Kishor Sambhaji Kharat and Anand Mohan Kharat, acted as intermediaries to convey the demand for the bribe.

The ACB claimed that an incriminating conversation occurred between the judge and the complainant while traveling in the judge's car towards the HDFC Bank in Satara. As part of his anticipatory bail application, the judge requested access to the bank's CCTV footage to challenge the allegations.

The bank refused to provide the footage without a court order, citing confidentiality norms. On January 15, 2025, Justice N.R. Borkar issued an order directing the bank to provide the footage within one week. The Court stated: "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the HDFC Bank, Mutha Colony, near Civil Hospital Sadar Bazar, at Satara shall provide CCTV footage dated 9.12.2024 to the applicant within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

Senior Advocate Ashok Mundargi, appearing for the accused judge, argued that the allegations were baseless and that the first information report (FIR) lacked evidence of any direct demand or acceptance of the bribe. The defense stated:

• The accused was either on leave or deputation on the dates in question.

• There was no record of the judge avoiding hearing the bail application or promising favorable orders.

• The alleged meetings between the intermediaries and the complainant occurred without the judge's knowledge or involvement.

The defense further asserted that the CCTV footage would demonstrate that the conversation alleged by the prosecution did not take place as claimed.

Additional Public Prosecutor Veera Shinde, representing the State, argued that the ACB’s investigation confirmed the accused’s involvement in soliciting the bribe. The prosecution maintained that the intermediaries acted on the judge’s behalf and that the CCTV footage would substantiate the prosecution's claims of the judge’s presence during the alleged conversation.

Justice N.R. Borkar considered the defense’s plea for access to the CCTV footage, noting its potential relevance in determining the veracity of the allegations. The Court recorded:
"The footage sought by the applicant may assist in evaluating the claims of the prosecution and the defense. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the request for the footage is justified."

The Court directed that the footage should be provided promptly to ensure a fair hearing of the anticipatory bail application.

The anticipatory bail application was scheduled for further consideration on January 27, 2025.

Case Title: Dhananjay L. Nikam v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3621 of 2024
Bench: Justice N.R. Borkar

[Read/Download order]