Rs 5,000 paid after a PF claim cleared: Bombay HC quashes CBI bribery case against ex-Jet staff
Justice Milind N. Jadhav quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and process against three pilots and a ground-staff employee who sent Rs 5,000 to Rs 20,000 per transfer to an EPFO assistant, holding that money reaching a public servant does not by itself show intent to bribe or any conspiracy.
One paid Rs 5,000 four days after his provident fund claim of Rs 1,50,000 was processed. Another paid Rs 10,000 two days after his claim was cleared. On 5 November 2026 the Bombay High Court held that such payments, to a man the four took for a private consultant, did not make out bribery or conspiracy.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav allowed four writ petitions by former Jet Airways employees and quashed the Central Bureau of Investigation’s FIR, its charge-sheet and the Special Court’s order issuing process against them. The case against the other accused, including the EPFO employee who took the money, was left untouched.
A PF assistant and thirteen payers
The petitioners are Raman Sharma, a 57-year-old senior commander with 38 years as a commercial pilot, and pilots Ashish Bhopal Hingarh and Rishiraj Singh Chawla. All three are based in Doha. The fourth, Paul Arnold Louis, is a retired ground-staff employee who worked 26 years for Jet Airways.
On 6 February 2023 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Vigilance) complained to the CBI about Machindra Jagannath Bamne, a Senior Social Security Assistant in the accounts section of the EPFO Regional Office at Kandivali (East), Mumbai. The complaint said he took illegal gratification from provident fund claimants.
EPFO’s own vigilance inquiry found credits of about Rs 1,77,000 in the accounts of Bamne and his wife, sent by thirteen Jet Airways employees including the four petitioners. The CBI registered a case against 15 accused on 11 July 2023 and charge-sheeted the petitioners on 30 December 2023.
On 6 April 2024 the Special Court, CBI, Mumbai, issued process in Special Case No. 612 of 2024 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners came to the High Court to have the proceedings quashed.
The fourth petition, filed in 2026, came up with no reply from the CBI, and its counsel said he had no instructions. The judge directed him to appear and assist anyway. Adjourning, he said, would only prolong the ordeal of a man who had served Jet Airways for 26 years.
The pilots: a consultant from a WhatsApp group
Jet Airways went into liquidation in 2019, and the petitioners said their provident fund dues were stuck because of glitches on the EPFO portal and KYC errors. Mr Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, argued for two of the pilots, with other counsel for the remaining two petitioners.
Mr Sharma said a Jet Airways pilots’ WhatsApp group recommended Bamne as a private consultant. He never met him and dealt with him only by phone. The two pilots represented by Mr Jagtiani said they never visited the EPFO office or met him, and all paid modest consultancy fees through ordinary banking channels.
They argued that nothing showed they knew he was a public servant. Section 8 needs intent to induce improper performance of a public duty, they said, and the charge-sheet recorded that Bamne hid his consultancy, run in his wife’s name, from EPFO.
They also pointed out that he had no power to approve claims, which an Accounts Officer, Tushar Gujarathi, cleared. Each petitioner had a separate provident fund account, so there was no meeting of minds for conspiracy. They also questioned who gave the Section 17A permission, and noted a gap between the FIR and the charge-sheet.
The CBI: the timing speaks for itself
Mr Kuldeep Patil argued for the CBI, and the Assistant Public Prosecutor adopted his submissions. Bamne, he said, processed Jet Airways claims in 2019 to 2022 and forwarded them to the Accounts Officer for approval, taking money through his joint ICICI Bank account with his wife.
The CBI relied on the statement of Hemant Janardhan Lokhande, PW-31, a Senior Social Security Assistant at the same office. He said Jet Airways employees visited Bamne and knew he took gratification to clear claims.
On the dates, the CBI said Mr Sharma sent Rs 20,000 on 1 May 2020 and Rs 15,000 on 19 September 2020, with Rs 50 lakh claims processed on 5 May and 21 September. Mr Chawla sent Rs 15,000 on 9 May 2020 and his claim of Rs 90,66,552 was credited on 13 May.
Mr Hingarh sent Rs 10,000 on 2 January 2020 against a Rs 14 lakh claim processed on 31 December 2019. The CBI called the consultancy explanation a defence for trial and said a conspiracy could be inferred from a common course of conduct.
What Section 8 demands
The judge framed the issue this way:
“The question which therefore arises for consideration is whether the material collected during investigation, even if accepted in its entirety, discloses the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against Petitioners under Sections 7 and 8 of the PC Act and Section 120-B of the IPC.” (para 12)
Section 8 punishes giving, or promising to give, an undue advantage to induce a public servant to perform a public duty improperly, or to reward him for doing so. Reading it, the judge held that paying a person who happens to be a public servant is not enough.
The prosecution must show the intention behind the payment and its link to improper performance. It had to show the petitioners knew Bamne was a public servant and paid to induce or reward improper performance.
Intent, the judge said, “cannot be presumed merely from the fact of transfer of money” (para 17). Small transfers into his joint account did not prove it.
No proof they knew his office
The prosecution did not dispute that the petitioners were entitled to their dues. It alleged no false documents and no approval of inadmissible claims. Its case rested on the payments and their closeness in time to the processing of the claims.
The judge found that the prosecution material itself supported the petitioners’ case. The charge-sheet said Bamne concealed from EPFO that he ran a consultancy in his wife’s name, and nothing showed he told any petitioner his designation.
There was no material that any petitioner visited the EPFO office or approached him in his official capacity, and no allegation that he demanded gratification from any of them.
Phone contact followed by bank transfers, absent material on intent, did not attract Section 8. The CBI’s own affidavits said Bamne only verified claims and KYC details and passed them to the Accounts Officer. The court noted that Bamne could not approve a release himself.
The judge accepted that improper performance can arise at the processing stage, not only at final approval. But the prosecution had not shown how any petitioner meant to induce Bamne to act improperly, and no specific act by which a claim was obtained contrary to procedure was identified.
Four claims, four timelines
Mr Sharma sent money before each of his claims was processed. The judge called that a circumstance that needed investigation, but it did not show the intention Section 8 requires. Nothing showed he knew Bamne’s status, and the prosecution did not say he was ineligible for the Rs 50 lakh claims.
Mr Hingarh’s claim was processed on 31 December 2019 and his Rs 10,000 followed on 2 January 2020. Section 8 also covers a reward for improper performance, the judge noted, but the prosecution had to show he meant the sum as one. It had no material that he knew Bamne was a public servant.
Mr Chawla paid Rs 15,000 four days before his claim of Rs 90,66,552 was processed. Closeness in time was relevant, the judge said, but could not be the sole basis for inferring intent to induce a public servant. No communication showed he sought preferential treatment.
Mr Louis’s claim of Rs 1,50,000 was processed on 3 October 2020 and his Rs 5,000 followed on 7 October. The prosecution identified no further official act for which the money could have been paid, and no material that he meant to reward improper performance.
Thirteen payers do not make a conspiracy
The prosecution’s premise, the judge said, was that all the Jet Airways employees paid the same account and so shared an arrangement. That inference could not rest on the identity of the recipient. Each payment had to be judged on its own circumstances.
Criminal conspiracy under Sections 120-A and 120-B needs an agreement between two or more persons, and such an agreement can be inferred from conduct. But the circumstances must reasonably show a meeting of minds. No meeting, communication or prior understanding among the petitioners or the other employees was identified.
Each petitioner had a separate provident fund account and a separate claim, and dealt with Bamne about his own dues. Several people independently approaching the same consultant could not establish conspiracy, the judge held, and separate transactions with a common recipient could not be raised to one.
A witness statement that proved too little
The judge accepted that Lokhande’s statement might matter to Bamne’s own conduct. But it was general. It did not say that these four petitioners visited the office, knew his status or arranged to pay him, and a general statement could not be used to attribute knowledge or intention to them.
Nothing on the record showed any petitioner’s claim had been rejected or faced objections that Bamne then got past in return for money. The use of banking channels did not make an unlawful payment lawful, the judge said, but the traceable transfers and the petitioners’ search for their own legitimate dues were relevant.
The CBI also relied on the petitioners’ admissions of contact and transfers. An admission of sending money, the court held, is not an admission of paying illegal gratification. The intention behind a payment is a separate matter that the prosecution must prove.
Why the court did not wait for trial
The judge acknowledged that under Article 226 the court does not conduct a mini-trial, and that disputed facts ordinarily go to the trial court. But where the allegations and the investigation material, taken at face value, do not disclose the ingredients of the offences, continuing the case is an abuse of process.
He kept the petitioners’ position separate from Bamne’s. His alleged acceptance of money from claimants had to be examined on its own, and his misuse of office would not by itself show that everyone who paid him shared his criminal intention.
Section 19 sanction for prosecuting Bamne, the judge added, does not supply the missing ingredients against the petitioners. He did not rule on the objection that the wrong officer gave the Section 17A permission, and the charge-sheet and the issue of process were no conclusive proof against every accused.
Relying on Lovely Salhotra v. State (NCT of Delhi), he held that nothing bars quashing an FIR against some accused only. Quashing as against these four petitioners was therefore open.
Order
FIR No. RC/026/2023/A/0029 of 11 July 2023, the charge-sheet of 30 December 2023 and the order of 6 April 2024 in Special Case No. 612 of 2024 were quashed as against the four petitioners. All consequential proceedings were quashed against them.
The judge clarified that his observations are confined to the four petitioners and do not affect the proceedings against the remaining accused. All four writ petitions were allowed and disposed of.