The Thane sessions court has refused bail to suspended civic official Shankar Patole and two others in a Rs 25-lakh bribery case which is being investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), news agency PTI reported.

The court order, dated October 10 and made public on Monday, denied bail to suspended Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) Deputy Commissioner Shankar Patole and his associates Omkar Ram Gaikar and Sushant Sanjay Surve. Additional Sessions Judge SS Shinde emphasised the need for a detailed probe into the sophisticated nature of the alleged financial crime.

Patole, who headed the TMC’s Encroachment Control and Eviction Department, was arrested along with Gaikar during an ACB raid at the civic headquarters on October 1.

Real estate developer Abhijit Kadam, who holds development rights for a plot in Vishnu Nagar, Naupada, alleged that Patole sought a bribe related to a property development involving the unauthorised construction of three shops. Kadam claimed he had already paid Rs 10 lakh to Patole through Surve on July 4. Surve surrendered on October 3 and was subsequently arrested.

All the three have been charged under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In his 21-page order, the judge noted that the investigation was still at an early stage and stressed that the ACB should be given sufficient time to trace the money trail, PTI reported.

“There is a possibility of discovery of different offences, for which provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act may have to be applied,” the court observed.

The judge added that a thorough investigation is needed to uncover any deep-rooted conspiracy for accumulating property in the names of the accused or through others as benami transactions.

Highlighting Patole’s senior position and influence, the court concluded that there was a strong likelihood of evidence tampering or witness intimidation if bail were granted.

The order noted that Patole did not accept the bribe directly but used co-accused Surve and Gaikar as “his agents.”

He allegedly took precautions to avoid leaving direct evidence, instructing the complainant to communicate only via WhatsApp on specific numbers, avoiding his personal mobile, and using numbers registered in other individuals’ names. The court observed that these steps indicated a deliberate attempt to obscure the financial trail.

“Hence, this is not a fit case to grant bail to the accused,” the court concluded.

(With PTI inputs)

Source