BA No.908/2024
..1..

Order
MHCC020168532024
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.908 OF 2024
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.1258 OF 2024
Nikhil Aggarwal
Age: 33 years, Occupation : Service
Residing at : Flat No.401, B- Wing,
Zoom Apartment, Sher E Punjab,
Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai – 93
.. Applicant
Versus
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
.. Respondent
Ms. Paavani Chadha, Advocate for applicant
Shri. Sandeep Singh, SPP for respondent/prosecution
CORAM :
S. H. GWALANI, SPECIAL JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.48
DATED :
14th NOVEMBER, 2024
ORAL ORDER
Applicant/original accused Nikhil Aggarwal, has filed this
application under section 483 of BNS, 2023 seeking bail in connection
with FIR No. RC0262024A0038, registered with CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
Case of the prosecution:
2.

On the basis of complaint dated 05.09.2024, received from Karan
Rawal, complainant, a case No. RC 0262024A0038, CBI, ACB, Mumbai,
BA No.908/2024
..2..

Order
has been registered against Deepak Kumar Sharma and others including
present applicant/accused for offence punishable under section 61(2)
(a) r/w Section 115(2), 127(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 7, 7A & 12 of
the P. C. Act,1988 (as amended in 2018).
3.

As per allegations in the complaint, 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 servant and beaten up.
Complainant was released by the accused public servant 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 Chartered Accountant 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. Accordingly,
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 accused Abhishek 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.

BA No.908/2024
5.

..3..

Order
It is also case of the prosecution that evidence collected from
seized mobile phones of accused persons revealed that co-accused
persons namely Deepak Sharma, Bijender Janawa, Nitin Kumar Gupta,
Nikhil Aggarawal and Rahul Kumar, were also part of the criminal
conspiracy and in contact with each other, during the intervening night
of 04.09.2024 and 05.09.2024. Accused Nitin Gupta had shared the
copy of summons issued to the complainant Karan Rawal to co-accused
Deepak Sharma, on intervening night of 04.09.2024 and 05.09.2024.
There are number of calls and whatsapp messages from Raj Agarwal to
co-accused Rahul Kumar, regarding illegal detention of the complainant.
It is also case of the prosecution that there are continuous calls between
Deepak Kumar and Rahul Kumar on intervening night of 04.09.2024
and 05.09.2024. Call recording of Harshil Joshi, who was dealing with
the matter, on behalf of Karan Rawal and Raj Agarwal, shows that
accused Deepak Sharma and co-accused Rahul Kumar, were aware of
each and every update of the said case. Accordingly, other co-accused
including present applicant also came to be arrested by the CBI.
Grounds of applicant:
6.

Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He has not committed any offence mention in the FIR.
No specific allegations have been made against him to substantiate
prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sole evidence
cited is a vague statement by the first informant, which lacks concrete
evidence of direct demand or acceptance of bribe by the applicant.
7.

Applicant was conspicuously absent during both payments of
alleged bribe of Rs.30 lakh each, including the trap, which occurred on
06.09.2024. No credible evidence which suggest that applicant received
BA No.908/2024
..4..

Order
or benefited from alleged bribe, either directly or indirectly, or that he
aided, abetted or facilitated the demand and acceptance of the bribe. A
thorough search of applicantТs residence on 6 th September, 2024
conducted by the investigating authorities yielded no incriminating
evidence including no cash or valuables indicative of bribe payments.
No documents or record suggesting illicit transactions. No lifestyle
inconsistencies suggestive of illicit enrichment.
8.

ApplicantТs role in the instant case is limited to conspiracy and
abetment of the primary offence, namely, the demand and acceptance of
the bribe. However, beyond the unsubstantial assertions made by the
first informant, there is no tangible evidence to corroborate this
purported involvement. In fact, a thorough examination of the records
reveals a stark absence of any concrete evidence, documentary or
otherwise linking the applicant to the alleged conspiracy or abetment.
9.

Applicant has no criminal antecedents with an unchequered
record of being an upstanding citizen. Investigation in connection with
present applicant has been completed. Since the commencement of
investigation, he has cooperated with the investigating authority. Now,
nothing more remains to be recovered or discovered at his instance. He
is permanent resident of address mentioned in the title and will not
abscond. He will not tamper with any evidence or influence any
witnesses to hamper the investigation process. In addition, he will cooperate with the investigation machinery to ensure an efficient and
thorough investigation. He is ready and willing to abide by any terms
and conditions that may be imposed on him.

BA No.908/2024
..5..

Order
Grounds of CBI:
10.

CBI filed reply vide Exh.02, denied the contention of applicant,
reiterated the case of prosecution and strongly opposed the application
by contending that applicant/accused in connivance with other coaccused persons has committed the offence. There is incriminating
conversation recorded during trap proceeding which shows involvement
of applicant/accused. Case is under investigation. Applicant/accused is
highly placed, moneyed and influential person and if he admitted to
bail he would definitely try to influence the witnesses and destroy or
cause to destroy important evidence against him, which is yet to be
collected. There is sufficient evidence against the applicant in this case
to establish the offence committed by him in connivance of other
accused persons. Prosecution has made out prima facie role played by
the applicant in this case.
11.

Applicant/accused has committed the alleged crime in criminal
conspiracy with other accused persons in a planned manner and with
cool mind. These type of offences are more serious and harmful to the
Nation/society and as such, this type of white collar crimes should be
dealt with strictly and seriously. The investigation is at a crucial stage.
Witnesses are yet to be examined. Offence is of serious in nature. If the
applicant/accused is released on bail adverse impact and wrong
message will go to the society, hence, by looking and considering the
seriousness of the offence, it is necessary to deal with him strictly.
Enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage will be detrimental to the
interest of investigation and further recovery of material evidence and
facts.

BA No.908/2024
12.

..6..

Order
Heard Ms. Paavani Chadha, learned advocate for applicant/
accused and Shri. Sandeep Singh, learned SPP for CBI. They argued as
per respective contention of application and reply. In support of
submission, learned advocate for applicant/accused also seeks to rely
upon the following authorities.
A.

Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the
HonТble Apex Court observed as under:
The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the
Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution
of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be
extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for
the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41 of CrPC be
served on the accused within two weeks from the date of
institution of the case, which may be extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be
recorded in writing;
Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart
from rendering the police officers concerned liable for
departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished
for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court
having territorial jurisdiction.
B.

Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
another, wherein the HonТble Supreme Court has also observed about
the direction issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar and held that :
The investigating agencies and their officers are dutybound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A
of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in
Arnesh Kumar. Any dereliction on their part has to be
brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court
followed by appropriate action.

BA No.908/2024
..7..

Order
The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the
compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any noncompliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
C.

Chanda Deepak Kocchar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,
2023 SCC Online Bom 72 and D. Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot Vs. CBI,
2023 SCC Online Bom 161, wherein the HonТble Bombay High Court
has also considered the directions issued in the cases of Arnesh Kumar
and Satender Kumar (supra).
13.

I have gone through the said authorities. Perused application and
reply.
14.

Admittedly, punishments provided for offence punishable under
section 61(2) (a) r/w Section 115(2), 127(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section
7, 7A & 12 of the P. C. Act,1988 (as amended in 2018), are not more
than Seven years. Even the grounds are not disclosed punishment of
maximum Seven years. In the instant case, three prime accused persons
are already released on default bail by this Court. So also, on the same
ground, co-accused Rahul Kumar, has also been released on bail by
learned Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2024.
15.

During the course of argument, Shri. Sandeep Singh, learned SPP
for CBI, fairly admitted that further judicial remand/custody of present
applicant/accused is not required. Admittedly, applicant is permanent
resident of India having proof of his permanent residence. Nothing is
produced on record by the prosecution to extend the judicial remand of
the accused. No criminal antecedents has been brought on record by the
prosecution. Admittedly, in the present case, substantive investigation
BA No.908/2024
..8..

Order
is completed. Therefore, considering the fact that three prime accused
persons are already released on default bail by this Court and coaccused Rahul Kumar, is also released on bail by learned Predecessor of
this Court and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the HonТble Apex
Court and HonТble High Courts (mentioned supra), I am of the opinion
that present applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of
parity. However, interest of the prosecution can be safeguarded by
imposing certain conditions on applicant. Hence, I pass following order:
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.908 of 2024 is allowed.

2.
Applicant/accused Nikhil Aggarwal be released on bail on his
executing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with
one or two solvent sureties in like amount, in connection with Crime
No. RC0262024A0038, registered with CBI, ACB, Mumbai.
3.
Applicant/accused 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 tamper with evidence.
4.
He shall furnish his permanent residential address and so also
local address, if any, 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.
The accused shall attend the office of Investigation officer as and
when called by the Investigation officer, in writing.
6.

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

7.
The applicant/accused shall not commit any offence while on the
bail.

BA No.908/2024
8.

..9..

Order
The applicant/accused shall attend each and every date for trial.

9.
In the event any of the conditions herein being violated the
prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.
10.

Accordingly, bail application stands disposed of.
SHYAM
HARIRAM
GWALANI
Date : 14.11.2024
Digitally
signed by
SHYAM
HARIRAM
GWALANI
Date:
2024.11.14
17:49:08
+0530
(S. H. Gwalani)
Special Judge, CBI
Gr. Bombay
BA No.908/2024
..10..

Order
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.Ф
14.11.2024, 5.45 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Mrs. S. P. Pawar
Stenographer (Grade – I)
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Shri. S. H. Gwalani
Room No.)
C.R.No.48
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
14.11.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 14.11.2024
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
14.11.2024