B.A. No.692/2024
..1..

Order
MHCC020137172024
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.692 OF 2024
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.1046 OF 2024
Abhishek Mehta
B-003, Saroj Apartment,
JP Thakur Marg, Fatak Road,
Opp. Post Office, Bhayander (West),
Mumbai Ц 401 101
.. Applicant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai
.. Respondent
Shri. Gaurav Shukla, Advocate for applicant
Shri. Mayank Singh, PP for respondent
CORAM :
S. H. GWALANI, SPECIAL JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.48
DATED :
19th SEPTEMBER, 2024
ORAL ORDER
Applicant/accused
No.2
Abhishek
Mehta,
has
filed
this
application for grant of bail under section 482 of BNS in FIR No. RC
0262024A0038 registered with CBI, ACB, Mumbai for offence
punishable under sections 61(2) (a) r/w Sections 115 (2), 127(2) of
BNS, 2023 and sections 7, 7A & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (As amended in 2018) and substantive offences thereof.

B.A. No.692/2024
..2..

Order
Case of the prosecution in brief
2.

On the basis of complaint dated 05.09.2024, received from Karan
Tarunkumar Rawat, Case No. RC 0262024A0034, CBI, ACB, Mumbai,
has been registered against Deepak Kumar Sharma and others for
aforesaid offences.
3.

As per allegations in complaint, the complainant is the proprietor
of M/s. Onyx Pharma, having business of pharmaceutical chemicals
Trading at Mumbai. On 28.08.2024, he had received a summons from
accused Sachin Gokukla, Superintendent, CGST, Mumbai, – Public
Servant, regarding purchase made by his company from Medsturdy
chemicals. When complainant reported to accused Sachin Gokulka, on
04.09.2024, he was confined by accused public servants and beaten up.
Complainant was released by the accused public servants at 0800 hours
on 05.09.2024 when his cousin brother Harshil Hitesh Doshi paid an
undue advantage of Rs.30,00,000/- to accused middleman Raj Agarwal,
a CA by profession.
4.

It is further alleged in the complaint that accused public servants
have demanded a total sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as undue advantage
through accused Raj Agawal which was to be paid on 05.09.2024 itself.
Since the complainant did not want to pay the aforesaid amount, he
submitted his complaint with CBI, ACB, Mumbai.

The allegations
mentioned in the complaint were verified discreetly, FIR was registered
and a trap was laid while demanding and accepting the undue
advantage by accused middleman Raj Agarwal and subsequently, by
Abhishek Sudhir Mehta. That, consequent upon successful trap, while
observing all legal formalities, accused Sachin Gokulka, Raj Agarwal
and Abshishek Mehta, came to be arrested on 06.09.2024 by the CBI.

B.A. No.692/2024
..3..

Order
Contentions of applicant :
5.

Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

Allegations made against him are baseless and without any substantive
proof. The primary investigation of the agency stands to be investigated
against misuse of accused public servant. Applicant happens to be
Chartered Accountant who has no bearing of any Government Title.
Further roping him in this investigation would merely cause immense
mental trauma to him and his family. Keeping him in continued police
custody has also lead to undue pressure, coercion or ill-treatment which
the accused wishes to avoided as he feels constant threat to his life.
6.

Investigation was happened in cruel form wherein he has been
assaulted by the CBI Investigating Officers and Team and the custodial
interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. Applicant has fully
co-operated with the investigating authorities, provided all relevant
information and has no intention of fleeing away. Remand report is
alleging all allegations and pointing towards the other accused persons
involved in this case, but none of them speak about any form of
allegations which is linking with the applicant. Recovery of any form of
monetary alleged in this case is from other accused involved and there
is no link to present applicant. He has completely cooperated to his best
knowledge and shall further cooperate if required despite of not being
connected in any manner whatsoever as alleged in this case.
7.

Grounds of respondent CBI in arrest memo that applicant is
giving evasive answers, is false. Applicant was not giving any answers
because the respondent wants him to falsely confess. Applicant was
physically assaulted many times during the investigation and the same
has been established by the bloodstains on the shirt as well as the injury
B.A. No.692/2024
..4..

Order
on the forehead near his eye. Applicant had admitted on 06.09.2024 as
he was physically assaulted by the Investigating Officer and this Court
has directed the CBI to seek medical of the applicant and submit the
report in sealed packet before this Court on 09.09.2024.
8.

Applicant has deep roots in society and is a law biding citizen. He
has permanent residence and there is no likelihood of his absconding or
tampering with evidence, if granted bail. He has no intention of
tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses. In fact, most of
the material evidence in the case has already been collected and there is
no further risk to the investigation. Applicant is not the principal or
mastermind in the alleged offence and the applicantТs role is minor or
peripheral in nature. He is primary breadwinner of the family with
dependent children/spouse/elderly parents who are facing financial and
emotional hardship due to applicantТs prolonged detention. Granting
bail would allow him to fulfill these responsibilities. Continued
detention of applicant without sufficient grounds would amount to a
violation of applicantТs fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The offences alleged are not of such gravity as to
warrant the denial of bail. He undertakes to abide by any conditions
that this Court may impose while releasing him on bail. Accordingly,
applicant prayed in above terms.
Contentions of CBI:
9.

CBI filed reply Exh.02, reiterated the case of the prosecution,
denied the contentions of applicant and strongly opposed the bail
application by contending that applicant/accused Abhishek Mehta and
accused Raj Agarwal, are middlemen of accused Sachin Gukulka and
they in conspiracy with each other has demanded Rs.60 lakhs and
B.A. No.692/2024
..5..

Order
accepted Rs.50 lakh from the complainant. There are sufficient
documentary, oral and circumstantial evidence against the accused
persons to establish the offences committed by them in connivance with
each others and prosecution has made out the prima facie case against
the applicant/accused in the present case. The offence is of serious in
nature.
10.

Applicant/accused Abhishek Mehta has contacts with Senior
Officers in CGST. He may influence the witnesses if he is released on
bail. He is not cooperating with the investigation of the case. He has
made false allegations against the CBI team to put pressure on
Investigating Officers. He is habitual offender. Case bearing No.57 of
2020, (charge-sheet No.7724/2024) under sections 438, 328 r/w
section 34 of the IPC was registered against him with Lonavala Police
Station. Even another case under section 125, 117 of the Motor Vehicles
Act was also registered against him. If applicant is released on bail,
adverse impact and wrong message will go to the society. Applicant/
accused has committed the alleged crime in criminal conspiracy with
other accused persons in a planned manner and with cool mind.
11.

It is further contended that there are sufficient documentary, oral
and circumstantial evidence against the accused persons in this case to
establish the offence committed by them in connivance with each others
and prosecution has made out the prima facie case against the
applicant/accused in the present case. The offence is of serious in
nature. If the applicant is released on bail, adverse impact and wrong
message will go to the society. Applicant/accused has committed the
alleged crime in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons in a
planned manner and with cool mind. These types of offences are more
B.A. No.692/2024
..6..

Order
serious and harmful to the nation as well as society and as such, this
type of while collar crimes should be dealt with strictly and seriously.
12.

Investigation is at a very crucial stage. Number of witnesses are
yet to be examined and crucial documentary evidence are to be
collected. The accused person is highly placed, moneyed and influential
person. Enlarging the accused on bail at this stage will be detrimental to
the interest of investigation and further recovery of material evidence/
facts. If accused admitted to bail he will definitely try to influence the
prosecution
witnesses
and
tamper
with
prosecution
evidence.

Accordingly, CBI prayed for rejection of the application.
13.

Perused application, reply, case diary and the documents placed
on record. Heard learned Advocate Shri. Gaurav Shukla, for applicant
and Shri. Mayank Singh, learned PP for prosecution/CBI as well as
Shri.R. D. Meena, Investigating Officer. They argued as per respective
contention of application and reply.
14.

Apart from the grounds taken in the application, learned advocate
for applicant submitted that there is no recovery from the applicant.
There is no absolutely case against the applicant. No bribe amount is
taken by the applicant. Applicant will be available for interrogation if
required and called by the CBI. There is no question of tampering with
the evidence or influencing the witnesses. The HonТble Apex Court held
that the bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Hence, no useful
purpose would be served by not granting bail. Accordingly, he prayed
that applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail.

B.A. No.692/2024
15.

..7..

Order
Per contra, Shri. Mayank Singh, learned PP for CBI apart from the
reply submitted that investigation of the case is at crucial stage. Number
of witnesses are yet to be examined and documents are to be collected.
The accused person is highly placed, moneyed and influential person.
Possibility of tampering the evidence and influencing the witness cannot
be ruled out. Considering the entire factors, this is not the fit case to
release the accused on bail at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed for
rejection of the bail application.
16.

In view of above rival submissions, following points arise for my
determination and I have recorded my finding with reasons as under:
POINTS
FINDINGS
1. Whether applicant/accused is entitled to be
released on bail?

..No..

2. What order ?

..As per Final order
REASONS
17.

It is settled position of bail law that entire merits of evidence and
accusation cannot be taken into consideration at the time of deciding
bail application. However, the test should be applied by reference to the
following considerations :
1. The nature of the accusation.
2. The nature of the evidence in support of the accusation.
3. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of evidence.
4. Large interest of public or State
5. Criminal antecedents and character of the accused.
6. Reasonable possibility of presence of accused to be secured
during the trial and similar circumstances.

B.A. No.692/2024
18.

..8..

Order
On perusal of case diary, it is seen as per FIR that accused were
booked for offence punishable under sections 61(2) (a) r/w Sections
115 (2), 127(2) of BNS, 2023 and sections 7, 7A & 12 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (As amended in 2018), and substantive
offences thereof. It is the story of the prosecution that a written
complaint dated 05.09.2024, addressed to the Superintendent of Police,
CBI, ACB, Mumbai has been received from complainant Karan Rawal
alleging therein demand of bribe of Rs.60 lakhs by accused Sachin
Gokulka along with other officers through middleman accused Raj
Agarwal, for settling the matter of his company M/s. Onyx Pharma.
19.

Complaint further discloses that complainant was confined for the
whole night in the Santacruz Office of CGST on 04.09.2024 when he
visited the office. He also alleged that he was released on 5 th September,
2024 after 18.00 hours of his confinement. During his confinement,
accused Sachin Gokulka, allegedly demanded Rs.80 lakhs bribe for not
arresting him which was subsequently reduced to Rs.60 lakhs. As per
allegations, accused Raj Agarwal and Abhishek Mehta, visited the CGST
office during the intervening night and negotiated the bribe with CGST
officials, which was brought down to Rs.60 lakh which was to be
delivered by accused Raj Agarwal. Out of negotiated bribe of Rs.60
lakh, Rs.30 lakh was allegedly paid by the cousin of complainant
namely Harshil Doshi through an Angadia (hawala).

It was further
alleged that only then the complainant was allowed to leave the CGST
office the next day.
20.

Case diary further discloses that allegations mentioned in the
complaint were verified discreetly in the presence of panch witnesses on
05.09.2024 which reveals the demand of undue advantage of Rs.60
B.A. No.692/2024
..9..

Order
lakh by accused Raj Agarwal for accused Sachin Gokulka and other
officer of CGST. Part payment of Rs.30 lakhs were already done in the
morning through Angadia and remaining Rs.30 lakh was to be done on
05.09.2029 itself. It further appears that upon recording verification
complaint, pre and post trap panchanama including voice transcription
panchanama was recorded by the CBI. Mobile phones of accused were
seized. Whatsapp conversation transcription panchanama was also
recorded by the CBI.
21.

Case diary discloses that CBI team arrested accused Raj Agarwal,
red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.20 lakhs on behalf
of CGST Officers, which is out of remaining bribe amount. Thereafter,
controlled bribe amount delivery was done to applicant/accused
Abhishek Mehta, who was to further deliver the bribe to accused Sachin
Gokulka.

During further trap proceeding, accused Sachin Gokulka
called applicant/accused Abhishek Mehta to meet him near Oshiwara
police station, for collecting bribe where he was also arrested. Thus,
CBI arrested all three accused persons involved in accepting bribe
during trap proceedings.
22.

Considering FIR, relevant material documents and investigation
papers, prima facie there are sufficient grounds to believe that
accusation is well founded against applicant/accused for offence under
sections 61(2) (a) r/w Sections 115 (2), 127(2) of BNS, 2023 and
sections 7, 7A & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (As
amended in 2018), and substantive offences thereof. It is suffice to say
that demand of bribe by the accused is verified before conducting the
raid in the pre-trap and post trap panchanama. The conversations
between accused themselves were also recorded and its transcription
B.A. No.692/2024
..10..

Order
was done. I have gone through the complaint, verification complaint,
pre and post trap panchanamas, transcription of recorded conversation
and it appears prima facie commission of crime at the hands of accused.
23.

Allegations which are posed by the prosecution are very serious in
nature. Therefore entire facts and the grounds as submitted by the
investigating agency are necessary to be unearth and this can be
possible after investigation is carried out in proper, fair and just manner.
Admittedly, investigation is at initial stage, possibility that accused may
influence the ongoing investigation cannot be altogether negated it is so
because accused Sachin Gokulka is in service since long and working as
Superintendent in CSGT Department, which is an important position.
Unless investigation is completed, ground of tampering of evidence, has
to be considered.
24.

No doubt, detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive.

Seriousness of the allegations or the availability of material in support
thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail.

Delay in
commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into
account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite
period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. In
the
present
case
accused
has
been
arrested
on
06.09.2024.

Investigation is going on and charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Though
criminal antecedent and character against present applicant is posed by
CBI. But, no such documentary evidence is placed on record by the
prosecution. However, allegations of complainant that he was confined
by the CGST officers in the CGST office. He was kept confined for 18
hours and subjected to repeated use of force and verbal abuse by four
CGST officers and who demanded a bribe of Rs.80 lakhs for not
B.A. No.692/2024
..11..

Order
arresting him and favouring him in an ongoing tax evasion probe. He
was released only after delivery of Rs.30 lakhs, are very severe and
serious in nature.
25.

Considering the serious nature of offence, allegation of
confinement of complainant and delivery of Rs.30 lakhs to CGST
officers for release of complainant, recovery of the bribe amount of
Rs.20 lakh from the possession of accused Raj Agarwal, and the fact
that statement of material witnesses including prime witness Harshil
Doshi are yet to be recorded and crucial documentary evidence are to
be collected, accused person is highly placed, moneyed and influential
person, enlarging the accused on bail at this stage will be detrimental to
ongoing investigation. I found substance in the contentions of CBI.
Therefore, I hold that taking into consideration the nature of offence
committed by the applicant with other accused persons in a planned
manner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage because
investigation is still going on. Such type of offences are more serious
and harmful to the nation as well as society and as such, this type of
white collar crimes should be dealt with strictly and seriously.
Therefore, there is no substance in the submission of learned advocate
for applicant/accused. Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
Bail Application No.692 of 2024 is rejected and disposed of accordingly.
SHYAM
HARIRAM
GWALANI
Date : 19.09.2024
Digitally signed
by SHYAM
HARIRAM
GWALANI
Date: 2024.09.20
17:21:14 +0530
(S. H. Gwalani)
Special Judge, CBI
Gr. Bombay
B.A. No.692/2024
..12..

Order
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.Ф
20.09.2024, 5.18 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S. P. Pawar
Stenographer (Grade – I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)

H.H.J. Shri. S. H. Gwalani
C.R.No.48
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER
19.09.2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on
20.09.2024
ORDER uploaded on
20.09.2024