Mumbai, October 13, 2017 (CBI Special Court): The Special Judge (CBI) for Greater Bombay, Shri Vivek V. Kathare (C.R.No.53), has rejected the second consecutive bail application of Kamlesh Jethmal Shah, Accused No. 2, in connection with a bribery case registered by CBI/ACB, Mumbai (No. RC BA/ 1/2017/A0027).
Shah, a 37-year-old bullion trader, was arrested along with a co-accused on September 22, 2017, for offenses punishable under Section 12 and other provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Prosecution’s Case:
The prosecution’s case, based on a complaint from the Director of M/s. Saf Yeast Co- Pvt. Ltd., alleged that Accused No. 1, a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, threatened the complainant during an income tax assessment meeting. The officer allegedly stated he would report adverse findings about the company to the Supreme Court regarding alleged cheating of French people, potentially impacting a pending case.
The prosecution further alleged that Accused No. 1 showed the complainant a complaint about tax evasion and offered to make it disappear and pass a favorable assessment order in exchange for a bribe of ₹5 Crores, later reduced to ₹3 Crores. Unable to arrange cash, the complainant was allegedly told that bullion would be accepted. Subsequently, Accused No. 1 introduced the present applicant, Kamlesh Shah, a bullion trader.
The verification panchnama indicated that Accused No. 1 demanded the ₹3 Crore bribe and agreed to accept it through cheques at the suggestion of Shah.
Applicant’s Arguments for Bail:
In his second bail application, Shah argued that he was falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and his name was not mentioned in the FIR or the initial complaint. He claimed deep roots in society and family responsibilities, assuring the court he would not abscond and would abide by any imposed conditions. He stated he had no knowledge of the alleged bribery transaction between Accused No. 1 and the complainant. Shah claimed he was merely present at Accused No. 1’s office upon request and was informed about a client wanting to purchase gold. As a bullion trader, he offered his services and provided his account details for cheque payments, considering it a purely business transaction for the complainant to legally buy gold. He also contended that all relevant articles and documents had been seized, negating the need for further custodial interrogation.
CBI’s Strong Opposition:
The CBI countered that Shah voluntarily offered his services to Accused No. 1 to facilitate the bribe in the form of three cheques totaling ₹3,09,00,000. The prosecution heavily relied on the transcription of recorded conversations, which allegedly revealed Shah’s active involvement in aiding and abetting Accused No. 1 by accepting the bribe amount on behalf of the public servant. The CBI argued that the grounds raised in the current application had already been addressed and rejected in the previous bail application, and no new compelling circumstances were presented.
Court’s Reasoning for Rejecting Bail:
Special Judge Shri Vivek V. Kathare observed that the current application lacked any new grounds for consideration compared to the previously rejected one. However, he still delved into the raised arguments.
The court found Shah’s explanation of his involvement unconvincing. The transcription of the recorded conversation prima facie revealed that Accused No. 1 used Shah’s services as a bullion trader to receive the bribe money disguised as payment for gold through three cheques issued to Shah’s firm, Sanghavi Bullion Pvt. Ltd.
The court highlighted the unnatural circumstances of the complainant, who allegedly had strained relations with Accused No. 1 due to prior tax assessments, approaching him to purchase a large quantity of gold, especially through an unknown person like Shah. This defense was deemed prima facie unacceptable.
Furthermore, the transcription allegedly revealed discussions between Accused No. 1 and Shah, in the complainant’s presence, about accepting the bribe in bullion form, with Shah suggesting it and assuring that it wouldn’t raise suspicion from assessment authorities if disguised as a bullion purchase via cheques. Shah also allegedly suggested using a code language for clearing the cheques to avoid suspicion and offered to adjust the bribe amount through inflated invoices and rates.
Based on this prima facie overwhelming evidence, the court concluded that there was a deep-rooted conspiracy between Shah and Accused No. 1, with Shah actively complicit in the commission of the offense.
Considering the gravity of the offense and the prima facie evidence indicating Shah’s involvement, the court found no grounds to grant bail.
The Order:
Special Judge (CBI) Shri Vivek V. Kathare passed the following order:
- Bail Application No. 630/2017 in CBI Remand Application No. 861/2017 is hereby rejected.
- The application is hereby disposed off accordingly.
The rejection of bail emphasizes the court’s serious view of the allegations and the strong prima facie evidence suggesting Shah’s active role in facilitating the alleged bribery. The court found the defense arguments unpersuasive in light of the recorded conversations and the overall circumstances of the case.