Trying to find out if any NCLT members involved in Rs 3 lakh bribe case, says CBI

Time of India

2 days ago

Mumbai: The CBI probing the Rs 3 lakh bribe case involving the arrested deputy registrar, Charan Pratap Singh, at the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is trying to ascertain if any members are involved.
The CBI informed the special court that "the accused (Singh) is involved in a corruption racket which may lead to a bigger conspiracy of corrupt practices taking place at NCLT".
Singh has moved a bail plea, submitting that during searches at his homes, the total cash found was merely Rs 22,000. "The accused owns no property in Mumbai and is living in a shared accommodation in a 8x10 chawl with a common bathroom and toilet," the plea submitted through advocate Shalabh Saxena said.
The plea said his fundamental rights were violated, the grounds for his arrest were vague, and there is no concrete evidence linking him to the alleged offence.
A court officer allegedly received Rs 50,000 as a share from Singh to influence an NCLT member's decision. The CBI has also found out that Singh's secretary stayed at the complainant's Lonavla hotel with her family without paying a Rs 30,000 bill which Singh adjusted in his bribe demand.
A dispute between siblings over a family-owned hotel in Lonavla is pending before the NCLT. One of the brothers filed a case at the CBI, stating that Singh had demanded a bribe from him to influence the proceedings in his favour.
On Monday, the CBI filed a fresh remand application with the special CBI court, seeking custody of Singh after stating that he transferred Rs 50,000 to Pradeep Kumar Nagarale, an NCLT Mumbai court officer, as part of illegal gratification to influence an NCLT board member, in advance on behalf of the complainant.
The CBI stated Singh holds crucial information about staff members who assisted him and discussed illegal payment distribution.
They indicated that questioning could reveal substantial evidence about other senior NCLT Mumbai officials' involvement.
Following dramatic events last week, the CBI arrested Singh and a private individual. The special court initially rejected the CBI's custody request, ordering judicial custody instead.
The CBI subsequently filed a fresh application on Monday, with the hearing scheduled for June 9.
The CBI found deleted WhatsApp messages between Singh and court officer Pradeep Kumar Nagrale regarding the Rs 50,000 payment. Nagrale informed the CBI that Singh offered him a share in the bribe for assistance in a pending NCLT Mumbai case.
Last Wednesday night, Singh arranged to meet the complainant at a Colaba restaurant to collect a Rs 3 lakh bribe.
He directed the money be given to his associate, Karsan Ahir, who was summoned to collect it. After Singh departed, Ahir collected the money from the complainant when the CBI arrested him red-handed. The CBI team failed to locate Singh in a nearby lane and he switched off his mobile suspecting the trap. When the CBI team reached Singh's house in the vicinity, they found a person was opening his house door.
The person told the CBI that Singh was at his house close by and he was Singh's friend.
The CBI visited his house and arrested Singh.
Singh's bail plea, which will also come up for hearing on June 9, said that he was taken into custody late at night and this was a "gross violation of his personal liberty". The plea also said that the CBI failed to demonstrate any "cogent or urgent necessity" to justify his arrest. The bail application labels the CBI's 'grounds of arrest' document as "vague, general, and lacking in specific attribution of culpability to the accused".
It was argued that the document contains "speculative assertions and generalized allegations, without any concrete evidence or material that directly links the accused to the commission of the alleged offence".
"Searches were conducted at the residence of accused in Lucknow as well as in Mumbai. No tainted money or any other incriminating material has been recovered from his possession," the plea said. The accused also pointed out to his limited role and responsibilities. The plea said that his duties are primarily procedural and judicial, and he possesses no sanctioning authority or financial decision-making power within the NCLT's administrative structure.
"His functions are conducted under supervision and through proper record, and no overt act attributed to him points toward criminal conspiracy or misconduct," the plea said.