In a significant development, a Pune police sub-inspector arrested for allegedly demanding a massive bribe has walked out of jail on default bail. The court order came after the state's Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) failed to file its chargesheet within the legally mandated timeframe.
Court Grants Bail on Technical Ground
Additional Sessions Judge Sucheta M Takalikar granted default bail to PSI Pramod Ravindra Chintamani on January 5, 2026. The order was passed as the ACB did not submit its chargesheet against the accused officer within 60 days of his arrest, a requirement under the law. The prosecution's request for more time was rejected by the court.
The public prosecutor informed the court that the delay occurred because a sanction to prosecute the police officer was still pending with the competent authority. However, the court emphasized that the right to personal liberty cannot be compromised on procedural grounds.
Details of the Bribery Trap
The case dates back to November 2, 2025, when ACB teams apprehended Chintamani from Rasta Peth in Pune. The 35-year-old officer, then posted with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Pimpri Chinchwad police, was caught red-handed accepting Rs 46.5 lakh.
According to the ACB's case, this amount was the first instalment of a staggering Rs 2 crore bribe he had demanded. The bribe was solicited from a lawyer to help the lawyer's client secure bail in a separate Rs 3 crore cheating case being investigated by Baner police.
The ACB stated that Chintamani initially asked for Rs 2 lakh. However, after checking the bank balance of the lawyer's client, he dramatically increased his demand to Rs 2 crore. He then agreed to accept Rs 50 lakh as the first payment. The lawyer approached the ACB, leading to a trap where the PSI was caught accepting Rs 46.5 lakh.
Legal Arguments and Court's Rationale
In his bail application, Chintamani argued that his detention could not extend beyond 60 days from his arrest, excluding the day of arrest itself. This period ended on January 1, 2026. He pleaded that even by January 5, no chargesheet had been filed, making him entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The prosecution opposed the plea, calling it premature as it was filed on January 1 itself—the day the 60-day period was to conclude. They urged the court to reject the application.
However, Judge Takalikar noted that the bail application was filed after court hours on January 1 and, crucially, the chargesheet was still not filed by the hearing date of January 5. The court relied on a precedent-setting 2021 Bombay High Court judgment in the Sudha Bhardwaj vs National Investigation Agency case.
That judgment held that denying default bail on a technical or formalistic view would violate the fundamental right to personal liberty. The Supreme Court later upheld this high court decision. Following this legal principle, the Pune sessions court granted default bail to the accused PSI.
This case highlights the critical importance for investigating agencies to adhere to strict procedural timelines in criminal cases, especially when the personal liberty of an accused is at stake. The failure to secure prosecution sanction in time has led to the release of an officer accused in a high-profile corruption case, underscoring challenges in the legal process.
