B. A. No.278/2021
..1..

Order
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.278 OF 2021
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2021
Amit Randhawasingh Dalal
Age: 33 years
Residing at : House No.81, Extn. ­ 2,
Nangoli, Delhi – 110041
.. Applicant/accused
Versus
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
.. Respondent
Shri. Sudeep Pasbola, advocate for applicant
Shri. Amrish Pandey, SPP for respondent
CORAM :
M. T. ASIM, SPECIAL JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.48
DATED :
06th April, 2021
ORAL ORDER
Present application is filed for grant of bail by applicant/accused
in Remand Application No.357 of 2021 in case registered vide RC
0262021A0005, CBI, ACB, Mumbai for offence punishable under
section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, offence under
section 120 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of P. C. Act have
been added.
Prosecution case in brief is as under:
2.

It is alleged that on 03.02.2021 a team of Central GST officials of
South Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai conducted
search at residential address of Shri Bhupendra Majethia while
applicant Amit Dalal, Superintendent, CGST conducted searches at his
B. A. No.278/2021
..2..

Order
office premises. On the same day, the complainant was taken to the
CGST office at Nariman Point and on the next day i.e 04.02.2021 at
11.30 p.m. after about 30 hours, he was threatened and made to
confess the evasion of GST to the tune of Rs.2.46 crores out of which he
was forced to deposit Rs.15 lakhs at around 11.30 p.m. Postdated
cheques amounting to Rs.2.31 crores were taken from the complainant.
Applicant asked for a bribe of Rs.15 lakhs for not arresting the
complainant in the matter. Fearing intimidation, the complainant told
him that he would pay bribe and asked for one week’s time to arrange
the bribe money, to which applicant agreed. On 06.02.2021,
20.02.2021 & 14.03.2021, applicant asked complainant to make
arrangement of bribe of Rs.15 lakhs or else case of GST evasion of Rs.5
crores would be made and got declared from his related traders and the
complainant would be arrested.

Applicant sent the copies of the
summons issued to two other traders to the complainant over Whatsapp
and again threatened him on the Whatsapp call that all parties/ traders
related to the complainant’s business will be summoned and by showing
more GST evasion, the complainant would be arrested.
3.

Complaint was verified firstly on 20.03.2021 and thereafter on
22.03.2021 in presence of panch witnesses. Verification of the
complaint revealed that a GST evasion case is pending against
complainant which is being dealt by applicant and he demanded undue
advantage/ bribe of Rs.15 lakhs and agreed to accept bribe of Rs.7 lakhs
from complainant for not further enhancing the GST evasion/tax
liability and not arresting complainant.
4.

After obtaining consent under section 6 of DSPE Act, 1946 for
investigation from the Government of Maharashtra, instant case was
registered and trap was laid in which accused Hemant J. Motivaras was
caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.7 lakhs from the
B. A. No.278/2021
..3..

Order
complainant on behalf of applicant at the instance of accused Gopal
Bhattar. On inquiry, accused Hemant Motivaras informed that he has
accepted this money as directed by accused Gopal Bhattar, CA for
whom he works. Accordingly, accused Hemant Motivaras was asked to
deliver the said amount to accused Gopal Bhattar, CA and accordingly,
he delivered. Further, Gopal Bhattar informed that he asked Hemant to
collect the said money from complainant as per direction of applicant
Amit Dalal. Meanwhile it is informed by accused Gopal and Hemant
that another party is coming to deliver bribe amount meant for
applicant. Accordingly, trap was laid and accused Ramesh Parmar, CA
was trapped while delivering bribe amount to Hemant which was meant
for applicant Amit Dalal.
5.

The investigation conducted so far revealed that in furtherance of
criminal conspiracy applicant in connivance with accused Gopal
Bhattar, CA and his employee Hemant Motivaras demanded and
accepted undue advantage of Rs.7 lakhs from Bhupendra Majithia and
also from other party. Further, accused Ramesh S. Parmar, CA in
criminal conspiracy with applicant gave Rs.5 lakhs to accused Hemant
Motivaras which was meant for applicant. It is further contended that
this is case of larger conspiracy in which public servant/applicant used
to collect large amount of money through aforesaid known and
unknown persons by abusing his official position and intimidation.
6.

Applicant filed bail application on various grounds. It is
contended that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
matter. The phone call with complainant was held in regard to
collection of GST amount for which applicant was asking for post­dated
cheques.

Applicant has nothing to do with the demand of illegal
gratification.

Custody of applicant is not warranted. All searches have
been carried out in respect of applicant and there is no likelihood of any
B. A. No.278/2021
..4..

Order
further recovery. Applicant has no longer has any access to any
documents or records. Hence, there is no probability of his tampering or
hindering investigation. He is law abiding citizen and public servant. He
is permanent resident and will not abscond if released on bail. He is
ready to abide by conditions if any imposed by this Court. He will not
tamper evidence and witnesses. Accordingly, he made prayer in above
terms.
7.

Respondent/CBI has filed reply and opposed application. It is
contended that no plausible ground is disclosed in application so as to
suffice for release of applicant on bail. The grounds taken by applicant/
accused are unfounded and illogical. Investigation of the case is at its
initial and crucial stage and important witnesses including complainant
are yet to be examined. Role of other conspirators need to be
investigated to find out any racket involved. Present applicant is main
accused and his role is not comparable with other accused and as such,
he cannot claim parity. Applicant has not cooperated during
investigation. He did not disclose about mobile phone being used by
him. After trap of persons deputed by him for collection of bribes, he
left to Delhi from Mumbai and he was arrested by CBI at Delhi. There is
reasonable apprehension that in case applicant/accused is admitted to
bail he would definitely try to influence prosecution witnesses and
tamper with the prosecution evidence which shall seriously hamper the
interest of prosecution. Accordingly, it is prayed that application be
rejected.
8.

Heard both sides. Learned SPP and learned advocate for applicant
advanced their arguments as per respective contention.
9.

At this stage, Court has to consider nature and seriousness of
accusation, severity of offences, nature of evidence collected, character
B. A. No.278/2021
..5..

Order
and behaviour of the accused, possibility of tampering of evidence and
accused absconding. The existence of a prima facie case is only to be
examined. Detail discussion of evidence and elaborate documentation
of merits is to be avoided.
10.

It is useful here to mention authorities in the case of Sushila
Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another 2020
SCC Online SC 98 and P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement 2019 SCC Online SC 1549.
In the case of Sushila Aggarwal Hon’ble Apex Court held that
“view expressed in Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh, K.L.Verma, Nirmal
Jeet Kaur, Satpal Singh, Adri Dharan Das, HDFC Bank, J.J. Manan and
Naresh Kumar Yadav about the Court of Sessions, or the High Court,
being obliged to grant anticipatory bail, for a limited duration, or to await
the course of investigation, so as the “normal court” not being “bye passed”
or that in certain kinds of serious offences, anticipatory bail should not be
granted normally including in economic offences, etc, are not good law.
In the case of P. Chidambaram it is held that “one of the
circumstances to consider is gravity of the offence is also the term of
sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have
committed. Such consideration with regard to gravity of offence is a factor
which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be
normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is
that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule
that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created
in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail
jurisprudence provides so.”
From the authorities in cases of Sushila Aggarwal and P.
Chidambaram referred above it is clear that merely that an economic
offence has been registered cannot be sole ground to refuse anticipatory
B. A. No.278/2021
..6..

Order
bail or regular bail. In light of above legal position present bail
application has to be considered on its own merits.

11.

Offences under section 120­B of IPC r/w sections 7 and 8 of P. C.

Act have been invoked in this crime. Punishment provided for these
offences is up to seven years. Role attributed to applicant is that he
made demand of bribe amount of Rs.15 lakhs from the complainant and
agreed to accept Rs.7 lakhs from him for not further enhancing GST
evasion/tax liability and not arresting him. It is further contended that
Rs.7 lakhs was accepted by accused Hemant from complainant on
behalf of applicant at the instance of accused Gopal and Rs.5 lakhs was
accepted by accused Hemant from accused Ramesh Parmar in criminal
conspiracy with applicant and it was meant for applicant. It is to be
noted that both amounts have been recovered. Pre trap and post trap
panchanamas have been drawn. Searches at the premises of applicant/
accused at New Delhi and Mumbai have been carried out. Recovery of
certain articles and papers have been made.

12.

Initially, this accused has been remanded to police custody.

Thereafter, on 30.03.2021, he is remanded to judicial custody as per
request made by the prosecution/investigating agency. This itself shows
his custodial interrogation with police is not required. He is behind bars
since 25.03.2021. CBI has also collected copies of Account Statements
of the wife of applicant and also taken voice specimen sample of the
applicant. In above background and in view of facts as pointed in
preceding para, there is no need to have custodial interrogation of
applicant/accused. Learned advocate for applicant submitted that
applicant is already suspended. That being so, possibility of his getting
access to the documents in office is remote.

B. A. No.278/2021
13.

..7..

Order
In relation to trap matter which has arisen out of RC No.

0262021A0005, CBI, ACB, Mumbai, custodial interrogation of this
accused is now not necessary. So far as contention of respondent that
role of other conspirators needs to be investigated to find out any racket
involved, it can be done by following due procedure. For that purpose,
further incarceration of applicant is not required. Applicant is public
servant and has residences at Mumbai and New Delhi. Although he has
been arrested from New Delhi but it cannot be said that he has
absconded. He has been arrested from his residence at New Delhi. In
the facts of matter his possibility of absconding does not appear to be
well founded. So far as apprehension of investigating agency in relation
to influencing witnesses and tampering with prosecution evidence is
concerned; allegations in that regard are vague and of general nature.
Even otherwise same can be addressed by imposing certain conditions.
In the light of discussion made above and in the facts of matter, I am
inclined to exercise discretion of granting bail to applicant/accused.
Hence, pass following order.
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.278 of 2021 is allowed.

2.

Applicant/accused Amit Randhawasingh Dalal be released on bail
on his executing P. R. Bond of Rs.50,000/­ (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) with one or more solvent sureties in like amount.
3.

He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
Investigating Officer or tamper with evidence.

B. A. No.278/2021
4.

..8..

Order
He shall furnish his permanent residential address along with
mobile number to the Court and Investigating officer. In case of change
of address and mobile number he shall intimate the same in advance to
the Court and investigating officer.
5.

He shall not abscond and make himself available for investigation
purpose and co­operate investigating officer in investigation and attend
office of CBI as and when required by investigating officer until further
orders.
6.

He shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

7.

Accordingly, bail application stands disposed of.

Date : 06.04.2021
(M. T. Asim)
Special Judge, CBI
Gr. Bombay
B. A. No.278/2021
..9..

Order
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
07.04.2021, 11.40 a.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S. P. Pawar
Stenographer (Grade­I)
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Shri. M. T. Asim
Room No.)
C.R.No.48
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
06.04.2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 07.04.2021
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
07.04.2021