:: 1::
B.A.No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
CCNR NO. MHCC02-012524-2024
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE,
(CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988)
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO.635 OF 2024
IN
ACB REMAND APPLICATION NO.801 OF 2024
IN
(CRIME NO.07 OF 2024)
Mohammed Farooq Mohammed Hanif Shaikh
Aged: 45 years,
Address: resident of Flat No.202,
Second Floor, Opus Wallace Fortuna,
Noor Baug, Dongri,
Mumbai-400003.
V/s.

]
]
]
]
]
]
…Applicant
The State of Maharashtra
ACB, BMU, Mumbai.

]
]
…Respondent
Appearances :Mr. Jaysingh Desai C.P.P. along with Mr. Lade, Ld. A.P.P. for the State.
Advocate Mr. Vikram Chaudhari for applicant/accused.
CORAM:
DATED:
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE
UNDER P.C. ACT
S.B. JOSHI
(C.R. No.46).
11th OCTOBER, 2024.

– 2 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
ORDER
The present application is filed by the applicant/accused –
Mohammed Farooq Mohammed Hanif Shaikh grant of bail in
connection with C.R.No.07/2024 registered with Anti Corruption
Bureau, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
(A) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as УPC Ф Act for short) and Sections 403, 409, 420, 465,
467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 483 of The
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (УBNSSФ for short), 2023 (439
Cr.P.C.).

2.

It is the case of prosecution that one co- accsued namely
Anilkumar Babulal Runthala (STO) MUM-BCP-C-20 and MUM-BCP-C26, Ghatkopar Division during his tenure from 2020-2021 failed to
follow SOP and thus though he was authorized to deal with G.S.T.
refund of Rs.10,00,000/-, still passed bills of 16 bogus companies and
allowed G.S.T refund of Rs.1,75,93,12,622/-. In view of the same,
inquiry was conducted by the SIT of 4 members in which it was found
that one of the co-accused namely Amit Lalge gave G.S.T. refund to the
following 16 bogus claimants:
Sr. Claimant Taxpayer
No.

GSTN. No.

Prop./Director/
Partner
Refundable
amount in Rs.

1.

M/s. Liberty Traders
27BETPC5060E1ZJ
Wahid H. Chaudhary
28,25,52696/-
2.

M/s. S.K.
Expo.

Zabi-ur-Rehman
Kamruddin Salmani
26,08,10,658/-
3.

M/s. Tradeset Export 27AAICT9139N1Z1
& Marketing (OPC)
Pvt. Ltd.,
Dipak K. Sejwal
20,17,90,344/-
4.

M/s.
Technotip 27AAICT2663H1Z4
Marketing (OPC) Pvt.
Ltd.,
Mohd.
Akhlakh 19,96,17,724/Ziauddin Ansari
5.

M/s.
Outsource 27AADCO3999A1ZB Rehmat Ali Momin
Optimization (OPC)
Pvt. Ltd.,
Fashion 27EUDPS4833L1Z1
19,54,70,404/-
– 3 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
6.

M/s. Linkpark Infra 27AAECL6357J1Z4
(OPC) Pvt. Ltd.,
Avesh
Maniyar
Abdulgani 13,71,68,068/-
7.

M/s. Buildnet Export 27AAKCB2155J1ZK
& Marketing (OPC)
Pvt. Ltd.,
Dilip
Salunke
Dattatraya 13,46,98,744/-
8.

M/s.
Floways 27AAECF3530H1ZU Rehmat Ali Momin
Marketing (OPC) Pvt.
Ltd.,
9.

M/s. Edan
Solution
Square 27BQMPR6313Q1ZZ Ramesh
Raut
10. M/s.
Shri
Traders
Balaji 27EBOPS6093C1Z4
7,65,78,416/-
Kashinath 6,21,99,464/-
Rohit Sunil Sonkar
2,99,95,518/-
11. M/s. Virtual Overseas
27EKVPK3191R1ZY
Vikas
Kumawat
Shankarlal 2,80,95,172/-
12. M/s. Irik Fashions
27BSTPL3940G1ZA
Ajaykumar
Nishad
13. M/s. Gladstone
27EUYPR9731M1Z8 Raju Shaikh
2,30,18,674/-
14. M/s. Onex Enterprises 27DAWPP6159Q1ZA Sujan Pandit
1,34,91,246/-
15. M/s.
Enterprises
1,64,24,636/-
Ramprit 8,60,71,214/-
Delmoon 27EDNPM8636Q1ZD Danish Nishar Malik
16. M/s. Onix Tradelink
27AMMPA8655P1ZA Sameer Safiqe Ahmed 1,13,29,644/Total Rs….. 175,93,12,622/-
3.

As such the Additional Commissioner, Mazgaon, Mumbai
directed to file FIR against the culprits i.e. other co-accused and the
concerned persons of the 16 bogus companies.
4.

By moving this application applicant/accused submitted
that his custody in this crime came to be transferred from another
Crime of CBI
bearing FIR No.06820170004, EOB, Mumbai dated
02.07.2024 by this Court. He had moved an Anticipatory Bail
Application but that came to be rejected on 29.06.2024. In that crime
he came to be arrested on 23.04.2024. He also came to be arrested in
ECIR
No.ECIR/MBZO/03/2017
on
23.04.2018
by
Enforcement
Directorate (hereinafter referred to as УE.D.Ф for short), Mumbai. He
approached before the HonТble Supreme Court by SLP (CRL) 6922 of
2018 against rejection of his bail by order dated 10.08.2018 passed by
– 4 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
the HonТble High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Criminal Bail
Application No.1297 of 2018. However, the HonТble Apex Court
declined him the bail vide order dated 07.12.2018. However, in the
said SLP, УLiberty to approach the trial court for interim bail was
granted but the trial court rejected his prayer for grant of interim bail.
Against that order he moved application before the HonТble High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, wherein he was permitted to attend his wife
either in the hospital or at home. That order was passed on 06.06.2019.
According to him, he was not permitted to avail the liberty till
10.06.2019 to visit his ailing wife. Then the HonТble High Court
permitted him said liberty by order 10.06.2019. According to him, his
wife underwent hysteroscopy and was discharged on 10.06.2019. Then
he again approached before the HonТble Apex Court whereby he
brought on record the proceedings before the HonТble Bombay High
Court. The HonТble Supreme Court by order dated 03.07.2019
extended orders dated 06.06.2019 and 25.06.2019 passed by the
HonТble Bombay High Court until further orders. Therefore, he was
under judicial custody but in his own home under the supervision of
two police officials. Then the E.D. office approached before the HonТble
Supreme Court to vacate the interim relief granted to him but said
application came to be rejected. He further submitted that he had filed
Criminal Writ Petition No.1153/2023 before the HonТble High Court for
quashing of ECIR, wherein he has been released on bail under PMLA
Case, vide order dated 05.12.2023.
5.

In the backdrop of these previous litigations/criminal
proceeding, the applicant submitted that he filed present application
for his release on bail on ground that the entire case at hand is based
upon documents. There is no question of tampering with the
documentary evidence or witnesses as the witnesses mostly are
– 5 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
officials. He further submitted that in the matter filed before the Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate Court against the so many culprits, his name is
not appearing in the list of accused and he has no role in the alleged
incident. He has placed copy of charge-sheet of the same where the
same matter of GST returns with the same set of Company transactions
have been investigated. He further submitted that during police custody
in this crime nothing was recovered from him. No money has been
shown attributed towards him. He has been implicated on the
statements of other co-accused in this crime. There was no nexus or
WhatsApp message with anyone of the co-accused in this crime to
establish the allegations made against him. He is willing to cooperate
with the investigation. So in view of settled position as to bail i.e., Сbail
is rule rejection is an exceptionТ and various decisions submitted that he
be released on bail.
6.

He further added that in the remand application of one of
the co-accused namely Farooq Contractor and Kiran Bhanushali shows
that GST transactions of companies in which present applicant is not
Director/Managing Director or partner. He is not beneficiary. He is
permanent resident of Mumbai. Hence, no possibility of his
abscondance. He will not tamper the investigation and he is ready to
abide with the conditions. If he released on bail then no prejudice
would cause to either parties. With this he prayed for granting him
regular bail and also permitting him to furnish cash bail in lieu of
surety. Hence, present application is outcome.
7.

The Ld. APP and Investigating Officer both filed their say
Exh.2 with this application and thereby submitted for rejecting the
present application on ground that present applicant is main culprit
and master-mind of the crime in question. Huge amount of Rs.175
– 6 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
crore is involved which is government amount. Investigation of the
crime in question is going on and many culprits are going to be traced
out at regular interval. The present applicant is having criminal
antecedents as he is accused in crime bearing No. RC No.06820170004,
EOB, Mumbai of CBI and another crime of E.D. office. He is habitual
offender. Investigation as regard other co-accused is going on and if
the applicant came to be released on bail then the investigation of the
matter like present one which consist misappropriation of huge amount
pertaining to Government will tamper. Likewise, possibility of
tampering the witnesses cannot be ruled out. The amount involved in
this crime is yet to be recovered. Present applicant has committed the
alleged act in this crime when he was under house arrest. One wanted
accused namely Faizan @ Nadeem Ansari is yet to be arrested and if
present applicant released then search of the wanted accused will
tamper. The Investigating Authority is investigating present crime at
various places like Mumbai, Ahmedabad and Surat. Thus, prosecution
objected this application and the prayer made therein.
8.

In support of this application, applicant has placed the
copies of various orders passed in criminal proceeding as well as copy
of FIR and other documents.
9.

Heard the Ld. counsel for the applicant at length as well as
the prosecutor and Investigating Authority. On the facts and
submissions on record following points arise for the determination of
the Court and finding thereon are given for the reason stated therein:
NOs.
1.

POINTS
FINDINGS
Whether the applicant Mohammed Farooq Е.In the negative.
Mohammed Hanif Shaikh is entitled for
– 7 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
his release under Section 483 of B.N.S.S.
as prayed ?
2.

What order ?

…As per final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS.1 And 2:
10.

Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant at length. The crux of
his submission is that till adjudication of the crime a person/accused is
presumed to be innocent and bail is rule and rejection is exception. The
accused is not having any concern with the crime or allegations in
prosecution case. Whatever the act in connection with the incident in
the question is done it is not by him but by other accused. He has not
committed even abetment to alleged gratification/corruption. Also no
allegations are against him. Whatever the statements of the witnesses
have been recorded, those are not admissible. Only on the statement of
one of the witnesses, the applicant has been arrested in this case. In
fact, there is no material or evidence against him. Even the C.C.T.V.
camera is silent to show the presence of the accused at the time of
alleged incident. The applicant is also not having concern with alleged
fraudulent documents in connection with the transaction in question.
The applicant is not beneficiary since the applicant being involved in
other crimes, he has been dragged in this case. According to him, same
complaint like present one is there before the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate Court but in that crime the applicant is not even shown as
one of the accused. In this crime the public servant is at fault. Thus, Ld.
Counsel submitted for grant of bail to the applicant and further added
that he is ready to co-operate with Investigating Authority for further
investigation which is stated to be continuing one so far as other
culprits are concerned.

– 8 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
11.

In rebuttal, Ld. APP submitted that there is ample material
in shape of statement of four witnesses Kiran Bhanushali, co-accused
Ajay Kumar Nishad, Zabirurrehman Salmani, Satish Gaikwad (bank
manager, Karnataka Bank, Aurungabad), Vinayak Kankhare -police
official which discloses involvement of the accused in alleged
accusation. The accused has active role in preparing bogus documents
pertaining to Bank A/Cs. The complaint filed before Ld. M.M. Court
cannot considered here to say that accused has not participated in
alleged transactions. The accused has active role in alleged accusation.
He is habitual offender. So bail application be rejected.
12.

In reply, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that
statement of co-accused (Kiran) can not be a ground to conclude
involvement of the applicant in the crime. It has no value in the eyes of
law. It is not admissible in evidence. The statement of the witnesses
upon which Ld. APP relied by saying that present accused has active
role, cannot be said sufficient to conclude that accused has participated
in the crime. During custody, nothing recovered from this applicant.
Alleged fabricated and forged documents are subject to proof which
can not be considered at this juncture.
13.

In support of his submission, the Ld. Counsel relied on the
following decisions:
(i)
State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai (1979) 3 SCC 347;
(ii)
Dilawar Singh Vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh & Anr. (2005)
12 SCC 709;
(iii) Suresh Nanda v. CBI (2008) 3 SCC 674;
(iv) Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan Vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr
2014 SCC OnLine SC 140;
(v) Ashwani Kumar Vs. State of Punjab on 16 May, 2023;
– 9 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
(vi) Ashish Bhalla Vs. State & Another 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5818;
(vii) Lalonde v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (1992) 3 SCR 261;
(viii) Belsund Sugar Company Limited v. State of Bihar (1999) 9 SCC
620;
(ix) Jeewan Kumar Raut & Anr. vs. CBI (2009) 7 SCC 526;
(x) State of (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay (2014) 9 SCC 772;
(xi) Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2017) 2
SSC 18;
(xii) Kunwar Pal Singh vs. Delhi Development Authority Criminal
Appeal No.1920 of 2019 decided on December 18, 2019;
(xiii) Sushila N. Rungta Thr. Lrs. Vs The Tax Recovery Officer And Ors.
2019 (11) SCC 975;
(xiv) Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through the Directorate of
Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270 and
(xv) Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Arising out of SLP
(Criminal) No.8781 of 2024.
14.

In the set of the facts, it is to point out that before filing of
the charge-sheet, this application has been filed. Admittedly, the bail
applications filed earlier by other arrested co-accused are already
rejected. The charge-sheet is in voluminous page. Admittedly, on record
investigation is still going on so far as involvement of other culprits
who are yet to be arrested. The allegations are as to cheating to the
tune of Rs.175 crore and said amount is stated to be belonging to the
Government. The transaction in question is related to be based on the
documents like leave and license, opening accounts and registering
alleged companies and are online transactions. The perusal of the
statements of the witnesses, namely Kiran Bhanushali (co-accused),
Ajay Kumar Nishad, Zabirurrehman Salmani, Satish Gaikwad ( Branch
Manager), Karnataka Bank and Vinayak Narayan Kankhare – police
– 10 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
official prima facie shows, involvement of the applicant in the alleged
transactions and participations of forged fabricated documents. The
voluminous charge-sheet show ample material disclosing involvement
of the applicant in alleged transaction. There is clear case of
involvement in preparation of forged and fabricated documents. The
allegations prima facie appears in respect of economic offences
involving misappropriation of huge amount in crores.
15.

Admittedly,
the
amount
involved
in
the
crime
is
Government money i.e. public fund. The perusal of the case papers
before the Court itself sufficient to see that the applicant is involved in
the economic offences of huge amount which is a public money.
Considering this, the Court has to be strict in its approach in dealing
with this type of offences, as economic offences constitutes a class apart
and need to be considered with a different approach in the matter of
bail. Prima facie there being material having deep-rooted conspiracies
and thus it- poses serious threat to the financial health of the country.
So in view of enormous amount of material placed on record in respect
of various transactions and the facts and records clears that thorough
investigation is still going on and thus, release of the applicant would
hamper the investigation pending against other culprits involved in this
case as the possibility of influencing the witnesses and tampering with
the material evidence on record and to be collected cannot be ruled
out. It will also cause hurdle in getting arrested the absconding
accused. So the apprehension raised by the respondent/ACB cannot be
ignored considering the allegation that the accused is one of the
conspirators or author of the monetary transactions involving huge
amount of money. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. counsel for
grant of bail is not acceptable and in the fact and circumstances of the
case and considering gravity of the allegation, offences and
– 11 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
involvement of huge public money, with due respect, the decisions
relied are not helpful to the applicant. As such, no case is made out to
consider the application. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to the
relief of granting bail. As such, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
16.

In view of aforesaid reasoning and finding on point No.1 as
above, the application must fail. As such, point No.2 is answered as per
the following order:
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.635 of 2024 filed by applicant/ accusedMohammed Farooq Mohammed Hanif Shaikh, in crime
No.07/2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
(A) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
Sections 403, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian
Penal Code, stands rejected.

2.

Bail application No.635 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.
SANJAY
BHALCHANDRARAO
JOSHI
(S.B. JOSHI)
Special Judge, under P.C. Act
City Sessions Court for Greater Bombay
at Mumbai.
: 11/10/2024
: 11/10/2024
: 11/10/2024
Date:-11/10/2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Digitally signed by
SANJAY
BHALCHANDRARAO
JOSHI
Date: 2024.10.11
17:25:43 +0530
– 12 – B.A. No. 635/2024 in ACB R.A.No.801/2024
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.Ф
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
11/10/2024 at 5.04 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
Name of the Judge ( With H.H.J. Shri. S.B. Joshi
Court Room No.)
(Court Room No.46)
Date of Pronouncement of 11/10/2024.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed 11/10/2024.
by
P.O. on
JUDGMENT/ORDER
uploaded on
11/10/2024.