Mumbai, Maharashtra – September 19, 2024 – In a significant ruling, the Special Court for CBI at Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Abhishek Mehta, a Chartered Accountant implicated as a middleman in a high-profile bribery and extortion case. Special Judge S. H. Gwalani, presiding over Court Room No. 48, denied bail to Mehta (Accused No. 2) in connection with FIR No. RC 0262024A0038, registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Anti-Corruption Branch, Mumbai.
Mehta faces serious charges under the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, specifically sections 61(2)(a) read with 115(2) and 127(2), as well as sections 7, 7A, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), along with other substantive offenses.
Allegations of Illegal Confinement and Multi-Lakh Bribery
The case originated from a complaint filed on September 5, 2024, by Karan Tarunkumar Rawat, proprietor of M/s. Onyx Pharma, a Mumbai-based pharmaceutical chemicals trading firm. Rawat alleged that he had received a summons on August 28, 2024, from Sachin Gokulka, a Superintendent with CGST, Mumbai, concerning his company’s purchases from Medsturdy Chemicals.
According to the complaint, when Rawat reported to Gokulka on September 4, 2024, he was allegedly confined overnight at the CGST Santacruz Office and subjected to physical assault and verbal abuse by CGST officers. Rawat claims he was released only at 8:00 AM on September 5, 2024, after his cousin, Harshil Hitesh Doshi, paid an “undue advantage” of ₹30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) to alleged middleman Raj Agarwal, also a Chartered Accountant.
The complaint further details that the public servants had initially demanded a total of ₹80,00,000 (Rupees Eighty Lakhs) to avoid Rawat’s arrest in an ongoing tax evasion probe, which was later reduced to ₹60,00,000 (Rupees Sixty Lakhs). This amount was to be delivered through Raj Agarwal. Unwilling to pay the remaining sum, Rawat approached the CBI.
CBI Trap Leads to Arrests
Following discreet verification of Rawat’s allegations, the CBI registered an FIR and set up a trap. The operation successfully led to the arrest of Raj Agarwal red-handed while he was accepting ₹20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs), part of the outstanding bribe amount.
Subsequently, a “controlled bribe amount delivery” was facilitated to Abhishek Mehta, who was allegedly tasked with delivering the bribe to Sachin Gokulka. During further trap proceedings, Gokulka reportedly called Mehta to meet him near Oshiwara Police Station to collect the bribe, leading to Gokulka’s arrest as well. All three accused—Sachin Gokulka, Raj Agarwal, and Abhishek Mehta—were arrested by the CBI on September 6, 2024.
Applicant’s Defence: False Implication and Allegations of Assault
Abhishek Mehta, through his advocate Shri. Gaurav Shukla, vehemently denied the charges, claiming false implication and baseless allegations. He highlighted his profession as a Chartered Accountant, asserting he holds no government title and that his continued detention was causing immense mental trauma to him and his family.
Notably, Mehta alleged that the investigation involved “cruel form,” claiming he was physically assaulted by CBI Investigating Officers. He stated that bloodstains on his shirt and an injury near his eye substantiated these claims. Mehta also asserted that he had admitted to the assault on September 6, 2024, prompting the court to direct the CBI to conduct a medical examination and submit a report by September 9, 2024.
Mehta’s counsel further argued that he had fully cooperated, had no intention of fleeing or tampering with evidence, and that most material evidence had already been collected. He contended his role was “minor or peripheral,” and as the primary breadwinner, his prolonged detention was causing financial and emotional hardship to his family.
CBI’s Strong Opposition: “Highly Placed, Moneyed, and Influential”
The CBI, represented by Public Prosecutor Shri. Mayank Singh, strongly opposed Mehta’s bail. They reiterated that Abhishek Mehta and Raj Agarwal acted as middlemen for Sachin Gokulka in a conspiracy that involved demanding ₹60 lakhs and accepting ₹50 lakhs from the complainant.
The CBI asserted the existence of “sufficient documentary, oral and circumstantial evidence” to establish the offenses, arguing that a prima facie case had been made against Mehta. They raised concerns about Mehta’s alleged contacts with senior CGST officers, fearing he might influence witnesses if released. The prosecution also claimed Mehta was not cooperating and had made “false allegations” against the CBI team to pressure investigators.
The CBI further pointed to Mehta’s alleged criminal antecedents, citing a case from 2020 under the IPC registered with Lonavala Police Station and another under the Motor Vehicles Act. They argued that granting bail would send an “adverse impact and wrong message” to society, emphasizing the serious and harmful nature of “white collar crimes,” which they believe should be dealt with strictly.
The prosecution stressed that the investigation remains at a “very crucial stage,” with numerous witnesses yet to be examined and critical documentary evidence still to be collected. They characterized Mehta as “highly placed, moneyed and influential,” asserting that his release would “definitely try to influence the prosecution witnesses and tamper with prosecution evidence,” thus jeopardizing the investigation.
Court’s Reasoning: Seriousness of Offence and Ongoing Probe Prevail
Special Judge S. H. Gwalani meticulously reviewed the application, the CBI’s reply, the case diary, and other evidence. The court noted that, prima facie, there were “sufficient grounds to believe that accusation is well founded against applicant/accused.” The judge specifically highlighted that the bribe demand was verified before the raid, and recorded conversations (pre- and post-trap panchnamas, voice transcription, and WhatsApp conversations) strongly indicated the commission of the crime.
While acknowledging the defence’s arguments, including the allegations of assault (for which the court had already directed a medical examination), the Judge placed significant weight on the “very serious nature” of the allegations, particularly the complainant’s alleged confinement and the payment of ₹30 lakhs for his release. The court also recognized that the investigation was in its “initial stage,” and the possibility of the accused influencing the ongoing probe could not be “altogether negated,” especially given Sachin Gokulka’s influential position as a CGST Superintendent.
The court dismissed the argument that detention should not be punitive, stating that the “seriousness of the allegations” is a valid consideration for denying bail. Though the CBI’s claims of Mehta’s criminal antecedents lacked documentary evidence at this stage, the court focused on the immediate implications for the current investigation.
Ultimately, the Special Judge concluded that granting bail at this juncture would be “detrimental to ongoing investigation”. The court found “substance in the contentions of CBI” and reiterated that such “white collar crimes should be dealt with strictly and seriously.”
Bail Application Rejected
Based on these findings, Bail Application No. 692 of 2024 was rejected and disposed of accordingly.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on alleged corruption, particularly when it involves public servants and the potential for evidence tampering or influencing witnesses during a crucial investigation phase.