:1:
Bail Application No. 708/2019
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR C.B.I.
FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 708 OF 2019
IN
CBI SPECIAL CASE NO. 38 OF 2018
(R.C. No. BSM/2018/E/0002нCBI/BS & FC/Mumbai dated 15/02/2018)
Vipul Chitalia S/o. Chunilal Chitalia,
R/o. Cн502, Parwana Apartment, Ts,
Sai Baba Nagar, Opposite Axis Bank,
Borivali (W), Mumbai.
(Presently in Judicial Custody)
..Applt./Orig. Accd. No. 10
V/s.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, Bank Securities
& Fraud Branch, Mumbai.

..Respondent/
Orig. Complainant
CORAM :
H.H. THE SPECIAL JUDGE,
SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE,
(C. R. No. 51).

DATED :
1ST JUNE, 2020.

Mr. Vijay Agarwal @ Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Ld. Adv. for the Applt./Orig. Accd. No. 10.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ld. P.P. @ Mr. M. N. Patankar, PC for the
CBI/Respdt.

ORAL ORDER
This
is
the
second
application
placed
by
the
applicant/original accused no. 10 Vipul Chitalia S/o. Chunilal Chitalia
..2..

..2 ..

for regular bail u/sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against
whom the offences punishable u/sec. 120нB r/w 409 & 420 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 r/w section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 have been registered by the Central Bureau of
Investigation, BS & FC, Mumbai.
2
Heard arguments advanced by Ld. Advocate for the
applicant/original accused no. 10 and Ld. PP for the CBI/Respondent.
The Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has reiterated the contents of
application. The prosecution has raised strong objection to grant prayer
in the application. It has produced say on record vide Exн87A. I have
perused the application and documents produced on record on behalf of
the applicant/accused.

I have also perused the say filed by the
prosecution.
3
At the outset, I would like to clarify that the present case
was pending in this Court i.e. Court No. 51, however the HonТble
Bombay High Court vide order dated 10/04/2019 directed the HonТble
Principal Judge of City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai to
transfer the CBI Case and Enforcement Directorate Case against the
present applicant/accused to one Court. Accordingly, the said cases i.e.
CBI Special Case No. 38/2018 and Case No. 9/2018 were transferred to
Court No. 50, City Civil & Session Court, Greater Mumbai. At present
the chargeнsheet against the applicant/accused is pending in Court No.
50 only.
4
It is the contention of applicant/accused that this is the
..3..

..3 ..

second bail application filed by him. The earlier regular bail application
was dismissed by this Court on 12/07/2018. Post the rejection of first
bail application of applicant/accused, he has spent more than one year
in the custody and coнaccused, who has similar role to that of the
applicant/accused and the accused, who had played major role as per
the chargeнsheet, have been enlarged on bail. The applicant/accused as
on today has been into custody for more than one year and is the sole
bread winner of the family and in his absence, his family is under acute
financial stress without there being any means of survival in
applicant/accusedТs absence. A Criminal Application u/sec. 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the HonТble Bombay High
Court, but the same was withdrawn with the liberty to file fresh bail
application before this Court after both the cases are assigned to one
Court.

The applicant/accused has claimed that though he was not
arrested by the Enforcement Directorate, he was granted bail vide order
dated 07/09/2018. Moreover, the applicant/accused had already spent
more than one year in the jail and hence, he deserves to be enlarged on
bail. The third ground raised by the applicant/accused is that other coн
accused have already enlarged on bail. The forth ground raised by the
applicant/accused is that merely because the applicant/accused is
allegedly involved in grave economic offence, the bail need not have to
be dismissed and fifth important ground is that the chargeнsheet has
been filed, hence the applicant/accused is entitled to be released on
bail.
5
The Ld. Advocate of applicant/accused has advanced an
argument that other coнaccused Shivraman Nair has got bail, despite of
..4..

..4 ..

the fact that he has signed the important/vital documents pertaining to
the prosecution case. The Ld. Advocate of applicant/accused has cited
the statement of PW No. 25 Shri. Subhash Dondiba Sakpal. The Ld.
Advocate of applicant/accused has also advanced an argument that the
applicant/accused has allegedly involved in hiding the documents, but
other coнaccused are also involved in the said process. The present
applicant/accused was receiving salary only from the accused firm and
he did not receive anything more than that.
6
The Ld. SPP of CBI has advanced counter argument and
pointed out the document nos. 1049 to 1058, allegedly fabricated Letter
of Undertaking. He has also pointed out that the prosecution witness
PW No. 22 Shri. Hitesh Shah has specifically mentioned in his
statement u/sec. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the present
applicant/accused was the custodian of said documents.

The same
witness PW No. 22 has further pointed out that the fraudulent copies of
said bogus Letter of Undertaking were found in the cabin of present
applicant/accused i.e. Vipul Chitalia.

He has also identified the
signatures of present applicant/accused. The Ld. SPP of CBI has drawn
my attention towards the statement of PW No. 23 Shri. Jignesh D.
Shah.

The said witness has categorically stated that the vital
documents
were
found
in
the
company
cabin
of
present
applicant/accused. Even PW No. 24 Shri. Vipul Surti had received
boxнfiles containing import documents and applications made to the
Bank Manager. None of the said witnesses have said anything about
accused Shivraman Nair. Even PW No. 26 Smt. Pratibha Rege has
specifically mentioned in her statement that all the vital piece of
..5..

..5 ..

evidence i.e. the documents, which were taken from the Punjab
National
Bank,
kept
in
the
personal
custody
of
present
applicant/accused. It is also important to refer the statement of PW No.
27 Shri. Jayesh Shirsekar, who was acting as a Peon in the firm of
absconding accused Mehul Choksi.

He has stated that the present
applicant/accused used to give the said documents to handover the
same to the main accused Gokulnath Shetty. In his statement, he has
specifically mentioned that he used to collect the original documents
from accused Gokulnath Shetty (Bank Manager of Punjab National
Bank) and used to handover the same to present applicant/accused
Vipul Chitalia.

The above mentioned evidence clearly indicates the
main role played by the present applicant/accused in carrying out the
entire bank fraud.
7
It is also important to note the statement of PW No. 29
Shri. Vipesh Dave. He has specifically mentioned that all the original
documents pertaining to said bank fraud were kept in one premises and
the same premises was locked and the key was kept with the present
applicant/accused. These all allegations clearly lead to the conclusion
that the role of present applicant/accused is very crucial in commission
of alleged offence. Therefore, it can not be compared with the bail
applications of other coнaccused. In the present case, the main master
mind absconding accused Mehul Choksi had committed the said big
bank fraud with the aid of another master mind accused Gokulnath
Shetty (Bank Manager of Punjab National Bank).

The present
applicant/accused was instrumental in commission of said offences and
he was the main coordinator between the absconding accused Mehul
..6..

..6 ..

Choksi and accused Gokulnath Shetty.

These all factors have been
elaborately discussed in the order of earlier bail application dated
12/07/2018.
8
The Ld. Advocate of applicant/accused has placed reliance
upon the observations of HonТble Supreme Court in the case of Shri. P.
Chidambaram v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation (Judgment in
Criminal Appeal No. 1603/2019 dated 22/10/2019), wherein the
HonТble Lordships have observed that the accused in that case is not a
Уflight riskФ and in view of the condition imposed, there is no possibility
of his abscondence from the trial. The statement of prosecution that the
accused in that case has influenced the witnesses and there is likelihood
that he will further influence the witnesses, can not be a ground to deny
the bail to the accused. With due respect, I would like to submit that
the facts of cited case are totally different from the facts of present case.
9
It is also important to note that the present case has been
transferred from this Court to Court No. 50 since last one year. Hence,
the factum of Уchange in circumstancesФ can be analysed more properly
by Court No. 50 only, as the chargeнsheet and the documents pertaining
to the subsequent process of investigation, were filed in Court No. 50.
The present applicant/accused can file fresh bail application on the plea
of Уchange in circumstancesФ in Court No. 50. However, this Court can
not reconsider its own views, as described in the order in earlier bail
application dated 12/07/2018. It has been elaborately discussed in the
earlier bail order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that on the same
ground, the bail application of applicant/accused can not be granted.

..7..

..7 ..

In the result, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order :н
ORDER
Bail Application No. 708/2019 in CBI Special Case No.
38/2018 is hereby rejected and disposed of accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court.)

Dated : 01/06/2020
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
Delivered to Certified
Copy Section on
(Jayendra C. Jagdale)
The Special Judge for CBI,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay.

: 01/06/2020
: 01/06/2020
: 01/06/2020
:
..8..

..8 ..

УCertified to be true and correct copy of the original signed
judgment/orderФ.
Upload Date & Time : 01/06/2020 at 2.55 p.m.
Smt. G. K. Kotawadekar
Name of the Stenographer
H.H.J. SHRI. JAYENDRA C. JAGDALE (C. R. No. 51)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order :н01/06/2020
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on :н01/06/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on :н01/06/2020
….