1 week ago
Mumbai CBI Court Rejects Ashalatha Shetty’s Discharge Plea
Ashalatha Shetty asked a court to remove her from a case about allegedly unexplained property and money.
The court refused to do that.
The case also involves her husband, Gokulnath Shetty.
Investigators say the couple bought several flats that cost more than their known income.
Ashalatha’s lawyer said she was not required to report the properties and that there was not enough evidence against her.
The CBI said both spouses were public servants and used money from their own bank accounts.
The court said there was enough evidence to continue the case and consider charges.
The alleged assets were valued at about Rs 2.63 crore initially and Rs 4.28 crore after further investigation.
The special CBI court rejected Ashalatha Shetty’s plea seeking discharge from the case.
The case concerns alleged disproportionate assets acquired by Ashalatha and her husband, Gokulnath Shetty.
Her lawyer argued that she was not required to declare properties and lacked sufficient links to the alleged assets.
The CBI said both accused were public servants who purchased properties jointly using funds from their accounts.
The court cited assets of approximately Rs 2.63 crore, later rising to Rs 4.28 crore during further investigation.
- Who
- Ashalatha Shetty and her husband, former Punjab National Bank deputy manager Gokulnath Shetty; the Central Bureau of Investigation is prosecuting the case.
- What
- A special CBI court rejected Ashalatha Shetty’s plea for discharge in a disproportionate-assets case.
- Where
- The case is before the Special CBI Court in Mumbai and concerns flats in Malad, Panvel and Thane.
- When
- The ruling was reported on August 25, 2026; the alleged check period ran from April 1, 2011, to May 31, 2017.
- Why
- The court found sufficient grounds to proceed, citing alleged property holdings disproportionate to the accused persons’ known income.
Ashalatha Shetty’s defense
CBI prosecution and court findings
Sufficiency of evidence
Ashalatha Shetty’s defense
Ashalatha’s lawyer argued that there was insufficient evidence to frame charges and that her husband’s use of her name when purchasing flats did not prove she had amassed disproportionate assets.
CBI prosecution and court findings
The CBI argued that the evidence established grounds to proceed, and the court found ample evidence and sufficient grounds to frame charges.
Property declarations
Ashalatha Shetty’s defense
The defense said Ashalatha, described as a clerk, was not required to submit or declare her properties to her department or bank.
CBI prosecution and court findings
The CBI and court said she was a public servant who had not informed her bank or department about the flat bookings and payments.
Income and property value
Ashalatha Shetty’s defense
The defense disputed that Ashalatha had independently acquired disproportionate assets.
CBI prosecution and court findings
The CBI cited her approximate income of Rs 48 lakh against property purchases exceeding Rs 88 lakh, while the court relied on broader figures for the couple’s assets and alleged disproportion.
Key facts
- Court
- Special CBI Court, Mumbai
- Accused
- Ashalatha Shetty and Gokulnath Shetty
- Initial assets cited
- Approximately Rs 2.63 crore, described as 238.44% disproportionate to known income
- Further-investigation figure
- Approximately Rs 4.28 crore, described as 590.83% disproportionate to the accused persons’ own income
- Properties
- Three flats in Malad, Panvel and Thane
- Check period
- April 1, 2011, to May 31, 2017
- Reported payments
- Rs 15.78 lakh for Panvel, Rs 11 lakh for Thane and Rs 3.01 crore for Malad
Quotes
Manphool Bishnoi
CBI prosecutor opposing Ashalatha Shetty’s discharge plea
“Her approximate income during the check period is around Rs 48 lakhs, but she has purchased the properties of more than Rs 88 lakhs. Hence, prima facie she has acquired disproportionate properties of Rs 40 lakhs during the check period (April 1, 2011 to May 31, 2017). Even her income from salary was Rs 22.60 lakhs, but she has earned Rs 40 lakhs. Hence, Rs 17.40 lakhs is the disproportionate assets.”
freepressjournal.in
The Special CBI Court in Mumbai
Court hearing the disproportionate-assets case
“The said amount in lakhs and crores was paid by both the accused from their own accounts. Even though, the sale of these flats is not completed as both accused have failed to make the further payment but the CBI has shown the said amount as expenses in their respective statements. Accused No. 2 is a public servant but still has not informed to her bank/department about the booking of flats by her and payment in lakhs and crores of rupees which is more than her known source of income.”
freepressjournal.in
Sources
Related news
Bank Clerk Faces Trial After Assets Found 577% Disproportionate
ACB Books Assistant Town Planner, Wife Over ₹2.78-Crore Assets
Lokayukta Raids Indore Officer, Finds Assets Worth ₹4.59 Crore
Telangana Officer Faces Asset Case After Rs 6.87 Crore Raids
Suspended GAS Officer Ketki Vyas Sent to Judicial Custody in DA Case
Mehul Choksi's Lawyer Vijay Aggarwal Faces Multi-Agency UK Probe
Mumbai Court Allows ₹33.02 Crore Choksi Rental Income Fixed Deposit
ED Makes Fifth Attempt to Declare Mehul Choksi Fugitive
Mehul Choksi Lawyer Charged in London Sexual Assault Case
