BA No.387/2024
..1..

Order
MHCC020074292024
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR CBI AT GREATER BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO.387 OF 2024
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.580 OF 2024
Vikas Bansal S/o. Jai Bhagwan Bansal
Age : 42 years, Occupation : Service
Residing at : A-201, Aster Tower,
Near Oberoi Mall, Goregaon East, Mumbai
.. Applicant/accused
Versus
CBI, ACB, Mumbai
.. Respondent/prosecution
Shri. Chandrakant Talekar, Advocate for applicant
Shri. Mayank Singh, SPP for respondent
CORAM :
S. H. GWALANI, SPECIAL JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.48
DATED :
09th MAY, 2024
ORAL ORDER
Applicant/accused Vikas Bansal, has filed present application for
bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Remand
Application No.580 of 2024 in RC0262024A0012, registered for the
offence punishable under section Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
Case of the prosecution in brief as under :
2.

On the basis of the complaint dated 30.04.2024 filed by
complainant Rohit Mohan Shinde, FIR No. RC0262024A0012 for
BA No.387/2024
..2..

Order
offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (As amended in 2018) has been registered against accused Vikas
Bansal, ITO (2) (1) (1), Income Tax Department at Air India Building,
Nariman Point, Mumbai.
3.

It is alleged in the complaint that complainant applied for lower
TDS certificate in favour of his uncle by online on 2 nd April, 2024 on the
portal of Income Tax Department. After that, they received online
intimation regarding certain clarification by the Assessing Officer (AO)
of aforesaid Income Tax Department. Accordingly, complainant
submitted the clarifications. But, complainant received no response
from the AO. Accordingly, complainant along with representative of his
Chartered Accountant went to the office of accused in order to know the
status of their lower TDS certificate. However, at relevant time, accused
Vikas Bansal has demanded 2 % of the deal Value of their property and
later on reduced the demand as 1 % of the total property value. In
short, accused demanded bribe of Rs.5.4 lakhs for issuing a lower TDS
certificate. However, complainant was not ready to pay the same
therefore, complaint has been lodged. During verification, said
complaint was verified by CBI, in which demand of bribe was reduced
to Rs.4 lakhs and accused was ready to accept the said bribe. On
02.05.2024, accused was apprehended while he was demanding and
accepting bribe of Rs.4 lakhs in presence of two panchas.
4.

Applicant/accused has filed this bail application on the grounds
that he is falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to with the
alleged crime, he is not remotely concerned with the alleged incident.
Nothing was seized from his possession. He is implicated on the basis of
baseless to decline to favour the complainant. He is permanent
BA No.387/2024
..3..

Order
residence of New Delhi and has no criminal antecedents. He was
remanded to police custody but nothing incriminating has surface
during the custodial interrogation. CBI officers have already seized the
required documents, articles and also conducted searches of his
residential premises. Now, nothing is to be recovered from the
applicant. He will abide by all the terms and conditions that may be
imposed by this Court. Accordingly, applicant prayed in above terms.
5.

CBI strongly opposed the application by filing their reply vide
Exh.02, denied the contents of application and reiterated the case of the
prosecution. It is contended that applicant/accused has been caught
while demanding and accepting bribe money from the complainant.
Bribe money was recovered from the possession of accused in presence
of independent witnesses. Accused is an Income Tax Officer, Public
Servant and has capability to influence the witnesses and tamper with
the evidence which would adversely hamper the investigation.
Investigation is in progress and is at crucial stage. Some incriminating
documents are yet to be recovered. Statement of the relevant witnesses
are yet to be recorded. This is a case of serious offence of a public
servant obtaining undue advantage by abusing his official position
which affects economic fabric of the country. Accordingly, prosecution
prayed for rejection of the application.
6.

Heard Shri. Chandrakant Talekar, learned advocate for applicant/
accused and Shri. Mayank Singh, learned PP for CBI at length. They
advance their argument as per their respective contention.
7.

At this stage, the Court has to consider nature and seriousness of
accusation, severity of offences, nature of evidence collected, character
BA No.387/2024
..4..

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. In view of the guidelines of the HonТble Apex
Court, it is clear that Уmere that any economic offence has been
registered cannot be a sole ground to refuse anticipatory bail or regular
bail.Ф
8.

In view of the above legal position, present bail application is to
be considered on its own merits. In present case, offences under section
7 of the P. C. Act has been invoked in this crime. Punishment provided
for these offences is up to Seven Years. Role attributed to applicant is
that, he has demanded 2 % of the deal Value of the property from the
complainant and later on reduced the demand as 1 % of the total
property value. In short, accused demanded bribe of Rs.5.4 lakhs for
issuing a lower TDS certificate from the complainant. During
verification, said complaint was verified by CBI, in which demand of
bribe was reduced to Rs.4 lakhs and accused was ready to accept the
said bribe. On 02.05.2024, accused was apprehended while he was
demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.4 lakhs in presence of two
panchas.
9.

It further appears that during investigation searches have been
conducted at the residential premises of accused. Some incriminating
material including cash of Rs.15 lakhs, yellow metal jewellery have
been recovered. Recovery of certain articles and papers have also been
made. Pre-trap and post trap panchanamas have been drawn.

BA No.387/2024
10.

..5..

Order
Initially, accused was remanded to police custody on 03.05.2024
and thereafter, on 06.05.2024, he has been remanded to judicial
custody as per request made by the prosecution/investigating agency.
This itself shows his custodial interrogation with police/CBI is not
required. Applicant is behind bars since 02.05.2025. Investigating
officer has collected the incriminating material, seized the mobile phone
of accused and also taken his voice specimen sample.
11.

In above background and in view of the facts mentioned in the
preceding paras, there is no need to have custodial interrogation of
applicant/accused. Learned advocate for applicant/accused submitted
that applicant is already suspended. CBI has also not disputed the said
fact. That being so, possibility of his getting access to the documents in
office is remote. In relation to trap matter which has been arose,
custodial interrogation of the applicant/accused is now not necessary.
Admittedly, applicant is public servant and has permanent residence at
Mumbai and New Delhi. Therefore, in the facts of matter, submission of
learned PP that their is possibility of accused absconding does not
appear to be well founded.
12.

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.
For that purpose, further incarceration of applicant/accused is not
required. 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, I pass following order.

BA No.387/2024
..6..

Order
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.387 of 2024 is allowed.

2.
Applicant/accused Vikas Jai Bhagwan Bansal 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.
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 detailed permanent residential address i.e.
Mumbai and New Delhi, and native residence 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 co-operate Investigating Officer in investigation and attend
the CBI Office, Mumbai as and when required by the Investigating
Officer until further order.
6.

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

7.

Accordingly, bail application stands disposed of.
SHYAM
HARIRAM
GWALANI
Date : 09.05.2024
Digitally signed
by SHYAM
HARIRAM
GWALANI
Date:
2024.05.09
17:36:31
+0530
(S. H. Gwalani)
Special Judge, CBI
Gr. Bombay
BA No.387/2024
..7..

Order
УCERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.Ф
09.05.2024, 5.35 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
09.05.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. 09.05.2024
on
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
09.05.2024