1
BA-mpid-911/24
MHCC020169582024
BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M. P. I. D. ACT
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, Gr. BOMBAY.
BAIL APPLICATION NO.911 OF 2024
IN
C.R. 846/2024
1. Mr. Sonu Jainath Gupta,
Age 35 years, Occ. Service,
r/at- 404, Parvati Smruti CHS Ltd,
Ambe Mata Road, Bhayander West,
Thane 401101.
2. Mr. Pravin Yoseph Sasane,
Age 39 years, Occ. Service,
r/at- 10, 1st floor,
Shanti Dham Chawl, Bazar Lane,
Opp. Malvani Church,
Malad(W), Kharodi, Mumbai 400095.

..Applicant
V/s.
State of Maharashtra
(through Crime Branch Unit-8,
registered with Malad Police station)
..Respondent
Appearance :Adv. Mr.Ameyprasad Atigre h/f Adv. Karnik for applicant
Ld. APP Mrs. Chaitrali Panshikar for State.
CORAM : HHJ SHRI N.G. SHUKLA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM No.20.
DATED : 19/11/2024
2
BA-mpid-911/24
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
1.

By this application applicants who are arrested in Crime No. 85 of
2024 registered with DCB Crime Branch, Unit-8 (initially registered as
Crime No.846 of 2024 with Malad Police Station) for the offences
punishable under Sections 316(2)(5), 319(2), 318(4) of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita (hereinafter referred as “BNS” in short), under Section 66 (C) and
66(D) of Information Technology Act and Section 25(c) of Indian Telegraph
Act and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors
(in Financial Establishments) Act (here-in-after referred as “MPID Act”) has
filed this application for bail under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred as “BNSS” in short).

2.

Investigating officer of DCB Crime Branch Unit-8 through
APP filed reply at Exh.2 and opposed application.
3.

I have heard learned advocate for applicants and learned
A.P.P for prosecution.
4.

As per FIR, accused No.1 Amar Parera and other wanted
accused had opened VFX Markets Company and opened its website. With
the help of applicants and other accused, they lured and induced persons
interested in trading in stock market for investment on the platform of
their company on assurance to give profit. Applicant No.1 was Retention
Manager and applicant no.2 was Team Manager in the said company. They
and other accused were making phone calls to the interested people and
misrepresenting them for investment of 100 US Dollers and after deposit of
said amount, it was got transferred in the account in name of Kailash
3
BA-mpid-911/24
Construction in Axis Bank. Initially they were showing virtual profit and
subsequently loss in the trading and grabbing the invested money.
5.

Learned advocate for applicants submitted that applicants are
employee for financial establishment. They are not involved in decision
making policy and responsible for management and conducting the
business of the financial establishment. Thus Section 3 of MPID Act would
not attract against the applicants. This Court has granted judicial custody to
the applicants on their first production. Desktops and other electronic
devices in the office of company have been seized by the Investigation
Officer. Other employees of the company are released on bail. Thus, on the
ground of parity, applicants are entitled for bail.

Applicants are ready to
co-operate to the Investigation Officer. Applicants were acting on the
instruction of employer. They had no personal dishonest intention while
making phone calls. They have no criminal antecedents. They are ready to
abide any condition. Hence, learned advocate prayed to grant the
application.
6.

Learned APP submitted that applicants were working on
managerial posts in the company.

Some of the accused are yet to be
arrested. If bail granted, applicants may tamper the evidence or create
hurdle in arrest of other accused. Hence, Ld. APP prayed to reject the
application.
7.

I have considered submissions, perused the FIR and say of
police. It appears that allegation against applicants is that they were
insisting to other accused for making phone calls for representing to the
investors to invest money from the platform of the company. Thus, this
appears to be case of deception and inducement. Hence, prima-facie section
4
BA-mpid-911/24
316(2)(5) of BNS would not attract against applicant. Applicant Nos.1 and
2 were at Managerial posts. Say of the police does not disclose that they
made phone calls to the investors for luring and inducing for investment.
There are no strong reasons in say of the police to reject bail application.
Considering allegations against the applicants and bail granted to the other
accused, rule of parity is applicable for the applicants to get bail.
Conditions can be imposed on the applicants to avoid tampering of
evidence and creating hurdle in search of wanted accused. In this view of
the matter, application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following
order:
ORDER
1.

Bail Application No.911 of 2024 is allowed.

2.

Applicants namely Mr. Sonu Jainath Gupta and Mr. Pravin Yoseph
Sasane be released on bail on executing personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs.
Thirty Thousand Only) each with one surety of the like amount in Crime
No. 85 of 2024 registered at DCB CID Unit VIII (Crime No. 846 of 2024
initially registered at Malad Police Station) for the offences punishable
under Sections 316(2)(5), 319(2), 318(4) of BNS and under Sections
66(C) and 66(D) of I. T. Act and Section 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act and
Section 3 of MPID Act.
3.

Applicants shall attend office of DCB Crime Branch Unit-8 as and
when called by written notice by investigating officer and co operate in
investigation.
4.

Applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the
Court.
5.

Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence and not to create
hurdle in search of wanted accused by the investigation agency.
6.

Breach of any of the aforesaid conditions will be ground for
cancellation of bail
5
7.

BA-mpid-911/24
Applicants shall submit proof of their residential address and their
contact mobile numbers as well as residential address and contact mobile
numbers of their two closed relatives to the investigating officer within two
weeks after their release from jail and update the same time to time
whenever it will be changed.
8.

Applicants are permitted to furnish cash security of Rs.30,000/- each
in lieu of surety for the period of four weeks. Cash amount of bail be
accepted after treasury hours.
9.

The Bail Application No.911 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed by NITIN
GANGADHAR SHUKLA
Date: 2024.11.29
11:22:31 +0530
Dt. 19.11.2024
Typed (direct) on 19.11.2024.
Signed by HHJ on 25.11.2024
( N.G. SHUKLA )
Designated Judge under MPID Act,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay(C.R.NO.20)
6
BA-mpid-911/24
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Steno
Upload date and time
Name of the Judge
: N.V Ubale (SG Steno.)
: 25.11.2024 (At 2.58 pm.)

H.H.THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI N. G. SHUKLA (C.R.No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 19.11.2024
Order signed by P.O. on
25.11.2024
Order uploaded on
25.11.2024/ 29.11.2024
On oral directions of HHJ, reuploaded
on 29.11.24, after making correction
in names of applicants.