1
MHCC020029592024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR. BOMBAY
Criminal Bail Application No.437 of 2024
Sanjay Kumar Uprety alias Basant
Dilliram Sharma
Age :- 52 Years,
R/at : Room No.44, Jain Nagar, Rakesh
Marg Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001
Permanent Address
Chatta Mohalla, Delhi Gate,
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001
..Applicant/accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
At the instance of Cuffe Parade
Police Station, Mumbai.
(In Crime No.251 of 2023)
…Respondent/State
Coram : Dr. Shri S. D. Tawshikar
(Court No. 10)
Heard on : 26.02.2024
Decided on : 26.02.2024
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. Ravi. P. Jadhav for applicant/accused
Addl. P.P. Mr. Ajit Chavan for State.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
This is the first bail application, under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” in short), after filing of chargesheet, in
connection with C.R. No. 251 of 2023, registered with Cuffe Parade Police
Station, Mumbai for the offences punishable under sections 384, 465, 466,
2
Cri.B.A.437-2024
468, 471, 419, 420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” in
short) and Sections 66 (c) and 66 (d) of the Information and Technology Act,
2000 (“IT Act” in short). It is made clear that applicant had filed one bail
application earlier, but before filing chargesheet, same was rejected by this
court.
2.

Perused application and reply (Exhibit-3) filed by prosecution.

Heard both sides extensively.
3.

The informant is a 71 years old lady. It has been alleged that
she received few phone call from anonymous numbers and persons on call
told her that some amount deposited by her husband in Provident Fund (PF)
long back, is now enhanced to Rs.11 Crore. So as to get said amount,
informant was asked to deposit certain amounts for government clearances.
It appears that informant and her husband were lured by the accused by
calling them. Under the garb of various taxes and fees for disbursement of
the Rs. 11 crore, they fraudulently got huge amount of Rs.4,35,50,277/from the informant and her husband. When they came to know about
cheating, present FIR came to be lodged.
4.

It has been alleged by the prosecution that present applicant, in
connivance with other co-accused, has cheated old aged informant and
routed said amount to various bank accounts and ultimately transferred it to
overseas bank accounts. It is alleged that present applicant is having active
involvement being connected to the fraudulent company.
5.

The present applicant is alleged to be one of the Director of
company namely Configt India Private Limited’ (company for short) and an
amount of Rs.69,53,088/- came to be deposited in the account of said
3
Cri.B.A.437-2024
company. Said amount was further transferred to overseas bank accounts.
The applicant being the Director is alleged to have considerable role in the
alleged offence. It is also alleged that present applicant was having multiple
names and had prepared multiple Aadhar Cards and other documents, so as
to cheat informant and alike.
6.

Mr. Ravi Jadhav the learned advocate for applicant submits that
applicant has joined company hardly six to seven months prior to alleged
incident. The applicant was in fact salaried Director and was not involved in
day-to-day monitory transactions of company. He submits that he came to be
arrested on the ground of suspicion. The learned advocate for applicant
further submits that applicant came to be arrested on 31.10.2023 and till
date he is behind bars. After rejection of earlier Bail Application, chargesheet
came to be filed on 28.12.2023. He submits that co-accused namely Hemant
Sharma, the employee of same company, is already released on bail.
7.

Mr. Jadhav further submits that considering the fact that the
investigation is completed and co-accused is already released on bail,
applicant be released on bail. He further submits that applicant is ready to
abide any condition imposed by this Court. Mr. Jadhav keeps reliance on
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahrukh @ Banti V/s
The State of Madhya Pradesh, in Special Leave to Appeal (CRL) No.1830 of
2023 dated 27.01.2023 on the point of entitlement of bail on the ground of
parity.
8.

Per contra the learned APP Mr. Ajit Chavan strongly objects the bail
application by filing reply. He argued various ground raised in reply. He
submits that though amount of cheating alleged against applicant is
recovered, considering the fact that applicant is the Director of the company
4
Cri.B.A.437-2024
and that he had multiple names and Identity Cards, this itself reflects his
pre- planning and intent to cheat people. He further submits that if applicant
is released on bail, he may indulge in similar activity. He thus, prays to reject
bail application.
9.

This Court while granting bail to he co-accused namely Hemant
Sharma, after considering submission of either side, in Para No.8 and 9, has
observed as under:-
8. From the FIR and other documents placed on record it
transpires that informant and her husband, from time to time,
transferred an amount of Rs. 4,35,50,277/- in different bank
accounts on (the false) promise of Cyber criminals to get an
amount of Rs.11 Crores as return on PF of retired husband of
informant. So for as the present applicant is concerned except
WhatsAap chat there appears no concrete material against him
to show his active involvement in offence of cheating. Prima
facie it appears that no money obtained from the alleged act of
cheating, is actually received by the present applicant. There are
no criminal antecedents to credit of present applicant. Chargesheet is also filed and thus investigation against present
applicant is almost concluded.
9. Some of the co-accused are still absconding. Naturally it
would take considerable time to complete investigation as well
as the trial. The offences are triable by Magistrate. Hence,
considering totality of facts and circumstances, I find it would be
too harsh to refuse bail to applicant. Court is required to balance
right to personal liberty of the accused as well as right of
investigating machinery to get sufficient opportunity to
investigate the matter. I find that in present case already
sufficient time is given to the investigation machinery to
investigate the role of the present applicant. His further custody
seems unwarranted. Hence, bail can be granted to applicant,
however, on certain stringent conditions, so as to see that
applicant would not flee away from trial. Hence, I pass
following order.
10.

In matter in hand admittedly, applicant is behind bars since almost
5
Cri.B.A.437-2024
four months. Investigation is completed and chargesheet is already filed
against applicant. Admittedly, the amount received by the company on its
account, is already seized and recovered by the Investigating Officer. There
seems no criminal antecedents against present applicant. Admittedly, the
alleged offence is triable by Magistrate. Co-accused namely Hemant
Ramakant Sharma against whom there are identical allegations is already
released on bail by this Court, therefore, on merit as well as on the ground of
parity, I find, it would be just and proper to release applicant on bail.
11.

Hence, I pass following order.
ORDER
A]
The Criminal Bail Application No. 437 of 2024 is allowed.

B]
The applicant Sanjay Kumar Uprety alias Basant Dilliram
Sharma be released on bail in connection with C.R. No. 251 of
2023, registered with Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai for the
offences punishable under sections 384, 465, 466, 468, 471, 419,
420 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections
66 (c) and 66 (d) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000,
on his executing P. R. of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh only) alongwith one or more sureties in like amount with the conditions
that ;
i)
Applicant shall not move out of India during pendency of
investigation and the trial without prior permission of trial
Court.

ii)
Applicant to visit Cuffe Parade Police Station for the purpose
of investigation with respect to absconding co-accused, as
and when called by Investigating Officer on written
intimation.

6
Cri.B.A.437-2024
iii) Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of prosecution.
iv) Applicant
shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such
facts to the court or to tamper with the evidence.
v)
Applicant shall furnish two documents as to proof of his
residence with his active phone number to the concerned
police station within 7 days after his release from the jail.

vi)
C]
Applicant shall not commit any criminal act while on bail.

Breach of any condition shall entail the consequences of
cancellation of the bail.

D]
Bail before the learned Trial Court.

E]
The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.

Date : 26-02-2024
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Corrected on
Signed on
: 26-02-2024
: 27.02.2024
: 27-02-2024
: 28-02-2024
(Dr. S. D. Tawshikar)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
C.R.No.10
7
Cri.B.A.437-2024
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
28-02-2024 at 05:30p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Mr. G. N. Sutar
As per Roznama dated 01.03.2024 order is re-uploaded.
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Date of
ORDER
Pronouncement
Dr. S.D. Tawshikar
C.R. No.10
of
JUDGMENT/ 26-02-2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on
28-02-2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
28-02-2024
8
Cri.B.A.437-2024