IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) FOR GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.595 OF 2017
IN
CBI REMAND APPLICATION NO.861 OF 2017
Jaipal Swami, aged 38 yrs.
R/o. Flat No.74, Bldg.No.5, CGS Colony,
Antop Hill, Mumbai.
V/s.
The State (Through CBI/ACB, Mumbai.)
No. RC BA/ 1/2017/A0027н Mumbai,
dated 20/09/2017
)
)
)..Applicant/Accused No.1
)
)
)..Respondent/CBI, ACB
Appearance :
Ld.Adv. Mr. Yogesh M. Rohira for applicant/accused.
SPP Mr. R. N. Sharma for the respondent/CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
CORAM : H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI)
SHRI VIVEK V. KATHARE
DATE : 04/10/2017 (C.R.NO.53)
ORAL ORDER
1.

The applicant/accused Jaipal Swami, serving as Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax at Mumbai, filed this application for grant
of bail u/s.439 of Cr.P.C., on account of his arrest by the Officers of CBI,
ACB,
Mumbai/respondent,
in
a
crime
bearing
No.RC
BA/1/2017/A0027н Mumbai, registered u/s.7, 12, 13, 2 r/w Sec.13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 20/09/2017.
2.

In nutshell, the prosecution case reveals that the
complainant A. Mutthu, the Director of SAF Yeast Company lodged a
written complaint with SP, CBI, ACB, Mumbai, complaining in respect
of the demand of Rupees Three Crores by the accused for the
assessment of the Income Tax Returns.
3.

The said demand was particularly for passing the
..2..

..2 ..

favourable assessment order on the Income Tax Returns of the
complainant for the financial year 2014н2015. The applicant/accused
Jaipl Swami further threatened to prosecute the complainant for having
cheated the French people and that he would also inform the same to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a pending litigation. Further, the
applicant/accused shown to the complainant a complaint registered in
the Tapal Book of CIT against his company regarding malpractice, tax
evasion etc.
4.

As per the prosecution case, after the verification of the
allegations in the complaint, the trap was led and the applicant/accused
alongwith two others i.e. Kamlesh Shah & Prathmesh Masdekar caught
red handed while accepting three cheques for total sum of
Rs.3,09,00,000/н from the complainant.
5.

In pursuance of the same on 22/09/2017, the office
premises of the accused was searched by CBI Officers. It is submitted
that the investigating agency has taken into possession all the necessary
evidence required to filed the chargeнsheet and therefore, custody of the
applicant/accused is not warranted. The custody was sought for the
purpose of confrontation with the other arrested persons and to
interrogate the applicant/accused with regard to the DebitнcumнATM
Card and to ascertain the alleged role of the senior officers of the
Department, which has been completed by the respondent. Also, the
voice sample & specimen handwriting of the applicant/accused was
obtained.

Hence,
no
further
custodial
interrogation
of
the
applicant/accused is warranted.

..3..

..3 ..

6.

It is stated that the applicant/accused has deep roots in the
society and there is no apprehension of his fleeing from justice. He will
abide by the terms & conditions imposed by the Court and undertakes
not to influence the witnesses and not to hamper the trial in any
manner.
7.

The respondent/CBI resisted the application by filing detail
reply. At the outset, it is contended that subsequent to the filing of
written complaint by the complainant, the verification of the allegations
in the complaint was made and after ascertaining its contentions, the
trap was led and the accused caught red handed while accepting three
cheques for the total sum of Rs.3,09,00,000/н, from the complainant.
8.

It is submitted that the investigation is at the crucial stage
and there is prima facie substantial evidence placed on record to show
the direct involvement of the applicant/accused in the commission of
offence, which goes to substantiate that the applicant/accused had
demanded bribe of Rupees Three Crores in the form of bullion (gold)
else he threatened the complainant to take punitive action and accused
Kamlesh Shah & Prathmesh Masdekar aided and abetted him. Hence,
prayed for rejection of the application.
9.

Heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties at length.

The
investigation so far conducted reveals that during the trap proceeding,
the telephonic call was made by accused No.2 Kamlesh Shah to the
applicant/accused Jaipal Swami regarding receipt of the cheques and
out of which, the cheque for Rupees Two Crores and Rupees Nine Lakhs
would be deposited УtodayФ and the remaining would be deposited on
..4..

..4 ..

УfourthФ. To this, applicant/accused Jaipal Swami responded by saying,
УThik Hai, Thik Hai, ( Bhd gS] Bhd gSA ) Very good, very goodФ.
10.

The investigation further reveals that while conducting the
search of the residential premises of the applicant/accused Jaipal at
Village Buchawas, District Churu, on 23/09/201, several incriminating
documents like the vouchers regarding the sale of gold, heavy cash
deposit in the bank account have been seized.

This prima facie
disclosed the modus operandi of the applicant/accused Jaipal Swami in
respect of purchase of gold even on earlier occasions.
11.

As per the prosecution case, the Tapal Book and the
complaint which was shown by the applicant/accused Jaipal Swami to
the complainant on 16/09/2017, to threaten him to obtain the bribe of
Rupees Three Crores, could not be recovered as accused is giving
evasive replies regarding the whereabouts of said documents which are
crucial for investigation. This further disclosed the non coнoperation of
the applicant/accused with the investigating agency.
12.

On bare perusal of the transcription in respect of the
recorded conversation vide Annexure ‘A’, prima facie, it reveals the
involvement of the applicant/accused in the commission of offence.
The applicant/accused Jaipal Swami used the services of coнaccused
Kamlesh Shah, a bullion trader for allegedly purchasing the gold from
the bribe amount, which was purportedly in the form of three cheques
issued in the name of Sanghvi Bullion Pvt. Ltd. (accused No.2 in the
case).

The
recorded
conversation
further
reveals
that
the
applicant/accused Jaipal Swami was apprehending in respect of the
..5..

..5 ..

interception of the telephonic calls by police and also suggesting to the
complainant that the payment by way of cash would be safer mode by
saying Уcash does not have any trail, not having trail is good for me &
youФ. However, when the complainant expressed his inability to pay
the bribe amount by way of cash then, the applicant/accused Jaipal
Swami preferred the alternate mode of cheque for the purpose of
acceptance of bribe amount. The recorded conversation would prima
facie reveals that the applicant/accused Jaipal Swami assured the
complainant that he is having good relations with the bullion trader Mr.
Kamlesh Shah (accused No.2) and during the trap proceeding, the
applicant/accused Jaipal Swami introduced the complainant with
accused No.2 Kamlesh Shah, the bullion trader and asked him to tender
the cheques in the name of Sanghvi Bullion Pvt. Ltd.

The accused
Jaipal Swami further assured the complainant that he will be issued the
necessary receipts including the payment made towards the GST
charges and on that count obtained the additional cheque for Rupees
Nine Lakhs.

As per the said recorded conversation, when the
complainant raised question by expressing his difficulty in respect of the
showing such huge amount in his account, then the applicant/accused
Jaipal Swami explains him how to manage the funds in his office
account. The accused also put forth other avenues wherein the bribe
amount can safely be given to him i.e. by way of investment in the real
estate etc.
threats
The recorded conversation further clearly disclosed the
given
by
the
applicant/accused
Jaipal
Swami
to
the
complainant, in the event the complainant failed to pay the bribe
amount.
13.

The panchnama drawn during the trap proceeding
..6..

..6 ..

including the verification of the demand as well as the acceptance of the
bribe amount by way of three cheques worth Rs.3.09 Crores, prima
facie established the direct involvement of the applicant/accused Jaipal
Swami in the commission of offence under the provisions of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
14.

The above referred instances clearly reflect the requisite
mens rea on the part of applicant/accused, his culpability and the
involvement in the commission of offence.

It also reflects the
antecedents of the accused i.e. recovery of vouchers regarding the sale
of gold from his residential house. The nature of accusations leveled
against the applicant/accused are quite grave, serious and considering
the character of evidence & circumstances and the reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the bail application
deserves to be rejected, in terms of order below :н
ORDER
1. Bail
Application
No.595/2017
in
CBI
Remand
Application
No.861/2017, stands rejected.
2. Application is hereby disposed off accordingly.
(Pronounced in open Court)
Mumbai:
Date: 04/10/2017
(VIVEK V. KATHARE)
Special Judge (CBI)
Court Room No.53, Gr. Bombay.

Dictated on
: 04/10/2017.
Transcribed on : 07/10/2017.
Signed on
:
..7..

..7 ..

УCertified to be true and correct copy of the original signed orderФ.
12/10/2017
at about 04.00 p.m.

(Mrs. Vidya Abhijit Mande)
Stenographer (H.G.)
Court Room No.53
Name of the Hon’ble Judge
: Shri. Vivek V. Kathare
(Court Room No.53)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order
: 04/10/2017.

Judgment/Order signed by Hon’ble Judge on : 07/10/2017
Judgment/Order uploaded on
: 12/10/2017.

at about 04.00 p.m.

….