Mumbai, Thane [Current Location] – April 15, 2025 – The CBI Special Judge for Greater Mumbai has rejected the bail applications of Ashok Vyankatesh Nayak, an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, and Dhananjay Ramanna Shetty, an alleged middleman. Both were arrested in connection with a bribery case (Crime No. RC-BA1/2017/A00018) registered by the CBI’s Anti Corruption Branch (ACB), Mumbai, under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The common order, dated May 18, 2017, was issued by His Honour CBI Special Judge P.K. Sharma (CR No. 48) after hearing arguments from the advocates for the applicants and the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the CBI.

The case originated from a complaint lodged by Raju Shetty, who runs Kapal Restaurant and Bar in Panvel, owned by Jairam Shetty. Both Raju and Jairam Shetty had received notices from the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Subsequently, an individual identifying himself as Ranjeet Kumar from the ED allegedly threatened Raju Shetty with arrest and instructed him to meet Jairam Shetty, who in turn directed him to Ashok Nayak.

According to the complaint, on May 3, 2017, during a meeting orchestrated by Raju Shetty, Ashok Nayak allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹12 crores to settle the ED matter. Nayak also reportedly asked for 25% to 30% of the bribe amount within one to two days. The bribe amount was later settled at ₹10 crores during verification proceedings. A trap was laid by the CBI, and Ashok Nayak was caught red-handed on May 6, 2017, while allegedly accepting an initial bribe installment of ₹1.25 crores. Following this, Nayak allegedly handed over the bribe money to Dhananjay Shetty, who was also apprehended on the same day. Both accused were remanded to CBI custody until May 15, 2017.

Ashok Nayak, in his bail application (BA 274/17), claimed innocence and false implication. His advocate, Mr. Eknath Sawant, argued that there was no prima facie case against his client. He highlighted that Nayak’s residential premises had been searched, and since the investigation mainly relied on documents and electronic records already in the CBI’s and relevant department’s possession, nothing further needed to be recovered from him. Mr. Sawant also emphasized that Nayak, a Class-I Central Government employee, had no likelihood of absconding and that the alleged offense was not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Additionally, he cited Nayak’s severe diabetic condition and heart trouble, for which he had undergone angioplasty. Mr. Sawant relied on the decisions in Sanjay Chandra V/s. CBI and Khemlo Sawant V/s. State, emphasizing the principles of presumption of innocence, personal liberty, and bail being the rule rather than the exception for offenses not carrying the most severe punishments.

Dhananjay Shetty, in his bail application (BA 283/17), also claimed false implication. His advocate, Mr. Nilesh Chavhan, argued that Shetty, a private individual and not a public servant, was implicated at the instance of the co-accused without any specific role assigned to him prior to the trap. Mr. Chavhan contended that Shetty was not required for further investigation and offered his client’s full cooperation.

Mr. Ashok Bagoria, the SPP for the CBI, strongly opposed both bail applications. He denied the claim of false implication, asserting that both accused were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting a substantial bribe of ₹1.25 crores. The prosecution argued that the investigation was at a crucial stage, particularly in ascertaining the connection between the accused persons and ED officers, and needed more time to record witness statements before considering bail. Regarding Dhananjay Shetty, the prosecution contended that he acted as a link between Ashok Nayak and Jairam Shetty.

Special Judge Sharma, while acknowledging the general principle that bail is the rule and refusal an exception, emphasized that each bail application must be considered based on its own unique circumstances, keeping broad guidelines in mind. He stated that the court could not indiscriminately grant bail even in cases where the offense is not punishable with the most severe penalties.

In this specific case, the court highlighted the fact that the accused were allegedly caught red-handed accepting a significant bribe. Notably, Ashok Nayak, a high-profile government officer, was allegedly accepting the bribe not for matters within his own department (Central Excise) but for issues related to the Enforcement Directorate. This raised a prima facie suspicion of connections between the accused and ED officers, necessitating further investigation in that direction.

Considering the involvement of a high-profile officer and the crucial stage of the investigation, especially concerning potential links to another government agency, the court opined that releasing the accused on bail at this juncture could adversely impact the ongoing investigation. The court also noted that a recent medical check-up report for Ashok Nayak did not reveal any significant abnormalities.

Consequently, Special Judge Sharma passed a common order, rejecting both bail applications. The order emphasized the peculiar facts of the case and the potential hindrance to the crucial ongoing investigation if bail were granted.

This order underscores the court’s cautious approach in granting bail in corruption cases involving high-ranking officials, especially when there are indications of a wider network and the investigation is at a critical phase of uncovering potential links to other government agencies. The fact that the accused were allegedly caught in the act of accepting a substantial bribe weighed heavily against their plea for bail.