IN THE COURT OF CBI SPECIAL JUDGE, GR. MUMBAI
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2017
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO. 431 OF 2017
Ashok Vyankatesh Nayak
Aged about 59 years,
Occupation : Service
R/O. Qtr. No. 199, 1st Flr., C Block,
Type 4, C.G.S. Quarters,
Sumantai Mhatre Marg,
Wadala (W), Mumbai – 400 031.
…Applicant
v/s.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai.
…Respondent
AND
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 283 OF 2017
IN
REMAND APPLICATION NO.431 OF 2017
Dhananjay Ramanna Shetty
Aged about 52 years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Flat No.404, 4th Floor,
Building No.1, Sai Building,
Vaishali Nagar,
Jacob Circle, Saat Rasta,
Mumbai – 400 011.
…Applicant.
v/s.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai.
…Respondent
…2/-
Common order in
BA 274/17 & BA 283/17
..2..
CORAM : His Honour CBI Spl.Judge
P.K. SHARMA (CR No.48)
DATED : 18th May, 2017
Appearance :
Mr. Eknath Sawant, Advocate for the applicant in BA 274/17.
Mr. Nilesh Chavhan, Advocate for the applicant in BA 283/17.
Mr. Ashok Bagoria, SPP for CBI.
COMMON ORDER
These are the bail applications by accused persons in
Crime No.RCBA1/2017/A00018, registered by CBI ACB, Mumbai
u/s. 120B of I.P.C. r/w. section 7 and 8 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant namely Raju Shetty had
lodged a complaint on 04.05.2017 that on 2016, he received a
notice
from
the
office
of
Enforcement
Directorate.
The complainant runs Kapal Restaurant and Bar at Panvel which is
owned by Jairam Shetty. The notice of ED was also received by
Jairam Shetty.
Sometime in April 2017, one Ranjeet Kumar
stating to be from ED made a phone call to the complainant and
threatened that he will be arrested and asked him to meet Jairam
Shetty.
Jairam Shetty in turn asked the complainant to meet
present accused/applicant Ashok Nayak. Accused Ashok Nayak is
serving
as
Asstt.
Commissioner,
Central
Excise,
Mumbai.
On 03.05.2017 when the complainant led applicant/accused
Ashok Nayak, the accused made a demand of Rs.12 crores for
settling
the
matter
with
the
Enforcement
Directorate.
Accused Ashok Nayak also asked the complainant to arrange 25 %
…3/-
Common order in
BA 274/17 & BA 283/17
..3..
to 30 % of the bribe amount within 12 days. The matter was
finally settled for Rs.10 crores during the verification proceedings.
A trap was laid and accused Ashok Nayak was caught red handed
while accepting bribe of Rs.1.25 crores. In continuation of the
trap proceedings, accused Ashok Nayak handed over the bribe
amount to accused/applicant Dhananjay Shetty and he was also
caught red handed on 06.05.2017.
The accused persons were
remanded to the custody of CBI till 15.05.2017.
2.
The accused Ashok Nayak is contending that he is
innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
primafacie case against him.
There is no
It is further contended that his
residential premises are searched.
It is further contended that
investigation mainly depends on the documents including
electronic record which are in possession of CBI and relevant
department and nothing is to be recovered from him. It is further
contended that there is no likelihood of absconding of accused as
he is the Central Government ClassI employee.
It is further
contended that the offence is not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. It is further contended that the applicant is
severe diabetic patient and suffering from heart trouble. He has
undergone angioplasty operation.
3.
Accused no.2 Dhananjay Shetty is also contending
that he is falsely implicated. According to him, he is a private
…4/-
Common order in
BA 274/17 & BA 283/17
..4..
person and not a public servant. He is implicated at the instance
of coaccused without assigning any role to him.
It is further
contended that the applicant is not required for investigation. He
undertakes to cooperate with the police in the investigation.
4.
The prosecution has opposed the bail applications.
False implication of the accused is denied. It is contended that
they were caught red handed while demanding and accepting
huge amount of Rs.1.25 crores.
It is contended that the
investigation is at a crucial stage and the connection of the
accused
persons
with
ED
officers
is
yet
to
be
ascertained/established and the prosecution needs time to
complete the recording of statements of witnesses before
accused/applicants are enlarged on bail. As regard the accused
Dhananjay Shetty, it is contended that he was a link between the
accused Ashok Nayak and the Jairam Shetty.
5.
Advocate Mr. Eknath Sawant for accused Ashok
Nayak has argued that the trap was laid in furtherance
of demand. The accused was not to show any official favour to
the
complainant
and
there
was
no
connection
between
Enforcement Directorate and the Central Excise Department. He
argued that personal liberty is valuable constitutional right and an
accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted bail is rule and
…5/-
Common order in
BA 274/17 & BA 283/17
jail is exception.
..5..
According to him, detaining of the accused
would amount to pretrial conviction. He also canvassed other
grounds mentioned in the application.
He also relied on the
decision in Sanjay Chandra V/s. CBI, 2012 CRI. L. J. 702.
In this case considering the material placed before the Court, it
was held that there was no possibility of tampering the witnesses.
It was also observed that grant of bail is rule and refusal is an
exception and the object of the bail is neither punitive nor
preventative.
The advocate for accused Ashok Nayak has also
relied on the decision in Khemlo Sawant V/s. State, 2002 (1)
Bom. C.R. 689. In that case, the bail application was rejected by
Sessions Court on the ground that the offence in question was
serious. The Hon’ble High Court observed that in case of offences
not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, grant of bail is
rule and jail is an exception.
6.
The advocate for accused Dhananjay Shetty has
argued that till the trap, the involvement of the accused is not
disclosed. He is implicated by accused Ashok Nayak after the trap.
It is further contended that the investigation is substantially
complete.
7.
On the other hand the SPP reiterated the grounds
mentioned in the reply opposing the grant of bail.
8.
It is true that bail is rule and refusal is an exception.
…6/-
Common order in
BA 274/17 & BA 283/17
..6..
However, while dealing with bail applications, the Court cannot
ignore the peculiar circumstances of each particular case. It is not
that bail must be granted indiscriminately in each case when the
offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Each case has to be decided considering its own facts, ofcourse,
keeping in mind the broad guidelines.
9.
So far as the facts of this case are concerned, the
accused are caught red handed while accepting huge amount of
bribe.
The accused no.1 is a high profile officer of the
Government. It is worth to note that he was allegedly accepting
bribe not for the work of his own department but for the work of
other department ie. Enforcement Directorate. Primafacie, there
appears some connections between the officers of ED with accused
person and the investigation is to be made in that direction.
10.
In such a case involving high profile officer, in my
opinion, the release of accused on bail may have adverse impact
on the investigation which is at a crucial stage. Hence, in view of
peculiar fact of this case, I hold that at this stage, the accused
should not be released on bail.
I have gone through recent
medical checkup report of accused Ashok Nayak.
There is
nothing abnormal in it. Hence the order.
ORDER
1.
Both the bail applications are rejected.
…7/-
Common order in
BA 274/17 & BA 283/17
2.
..7..
This order be kept in BA No.274/17 and its certified
copy be kept in BA No.283/17.
18/05/2017
(P.K. Sharma)
CBI SPECIAL JUDGE
Gr. Mumbai
Direct Dictation
:
18/05/2017
Signed on
:
18/05/2017
…8/-
Common order in
BA 274/17 & BA 283/17
..8..
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.”
19/05/2017, at 10.55 a.m.
AMIT SHINDE [TYPIST]
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
Name of the Judge
(With Court room no.)
Date of Pronouncement of Order
Order signed by P.O. on
Order uploaded on
HHJ Shri P.K. Sharma
Court Room No.48
18/05/2017
18/05/2017
19/05/2017
…/-