Mumbai, Maharashtra – In a significant ruling by the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act), Anshu Ramkrit Soni, a 27-year-old telecaller, has been granted bail in a case alleging widespread financial fraud. The order, issued on October 8, 2024, by H.H.J. Shri N.G. Shukla (Court No. 20), highlighted that Soni, as an employee, appeared to be acting under the direction of her superiors and lacked personal dishonest intention.

Soni was arrested in Crime No. 76 of 2024, initially registered as Crime No. 144 of 2024 at Aarey Sub Police Station, and later transferred to the DCB CID Unit XII. The charges against her include serious offenses under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), along with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology (IT) Act and Section 3 of the MPID Act. She filed for bail under Section 483 of The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Prosecution’s Allegations and Defense Arguments

The prosecution’s case, presented by Ld. APP Ms. Panshikar, outlined that Soni was employed as a telecaller in a “Financial Establishment” (F.E.). Along with other telecallers, she allegedly enticed an informant and other investors to deposit ₹1475 each online into the F.E.’s bank account, promising a loan in return. The informant reportedly deposited the amount twice but never received the promised loan, leading to the lodging of a complaint. The investigation revealed that other investors were also allegedly cheated. Police subsequently raided the F.E. office, seizing mobile phones, laptops, and desktop computers, and arrested a total of 24 accused in connection with the crime. The Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) had filed a reply opposing the bail application, arguing that Soni’s involvement was prima facie evident and that granting bail might lead to evidence tampering, particularly regarding investor data stored in email accounts.

Ld. Adv. Satyadev Joshi, representing Anshu Ramkrit Soni, argued that his client was merely a telecaller working on a commission basis and had no role in “luring and inducing” investors. He contended that Soni was simply “obeying orders of accused Nos 1 and 17,” identified as the proprietor and manager of the F.E., respectively. He further submitted that even if the allegations were taken at face value, the invoked sections of the BNS and MPID Act would not apply to Soni. He stressed that Soni’s continued detention was unnecessary for further investigation and that she was ready to cooperate.

Court’s Rationale for Granting Bail

After considering the submissions and reviewing the record, Judge Shukla observed that it was undisputed Soni worked as a telecaller on a commission basis or as a paid employee. Crucially, the court noted from the FIR and the investigating officer’s statement that Accused No. 1 was the proprietor and Accused No. 17 was the manager of the F.E., and Soni was working under their direction.

The court’s order stated: “Thus, even though applicant would have made phone calls to the investors, applicant had no any personal dishonest intention to lure and induce investors for depositing their money. Applicant was acting on the direction and instructions of proprietor and director of the F.E. Hence prima facie sections 316(2) and 318 of BNS as well as Section 3 of the MPID Act would not attract against the applicant.”

The court also acknowledged that Soni’s mobile phone, and the F.E.’s laptops and desktop computers, had already been seized by the police. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to impose conditions on her to ensure cooperation with the investigation regarding data access.

Conditions for Bail

Anshu Ramkrit Soni has been granted bail on executing a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount. The bail is subject to several conditions designed to ensure her cooperation and prevent obstruction of justice:

• She must attend the office of DCB CID Unit on October 11, 2024, October 14, 2024, and October 16, 2024, and thereafter as and when called by written notice from the investigating officer, and cooperate in the investigation.
• She must provide passwords for email accounts used in the company’s office to the investigating officer and not change these passwords or tamper with data in her seized mobile phones, laptops, and computers.
• She is prohibited from leaving India without prior court permission.
• She must deposit her passport with the investigating officer within two weeks of her release; if she does not possess a passport, she must file an affidavit to that effect.
• She must submit proof of her residential address and contact mobile numbers, as well as the residential addresses and contact mobile numbers of two close relatives, to the investigating officer within two weeks of her release and update them if changed.
• She shall not threaten or influence any prosecution witnesses or hamper further investigation.
• She is permitted to furnish a cash security of ₹30,000 in lieu of surety for a period of four weeks.

The bail application has been disposed of accordingly, with the amount of cash security to be accepted after treasury hours. This decision provides significant relief to Anshu Ramkrit Soni, allowing her to pursue her defense from outside judicial custody, based on the court’s prima facie assessment of her role in the alleged fraud.