Mumbai, Maharashtra – A Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act) at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, has granted bail to Neha Shankar Magre, a telecaller accused in a financial fraud case. The order was passed by HHJ Shri N.G. Shukla (Court No. 20) on October 8, 2024.

Magre, identified as Accused No. 19, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 76 of 2024 (initially registered as Crime No. 144 of 2024 at Arey Sub Police Station, now handled by DCB CID Unit XII). She was charged under Sections 316(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) read with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology (IT) Act and Section 3 of the MPID Act.

Ld. Adv. Shishir S. Manjrekar (also Adv. Faiyaz Sathe) represented the applicant, while Ld. APP. Ms. Panshikar appeared for the State/EOW (Economic Offenses Wing).

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution alleged that Neha Shankar Magre, working as a telecaller on a commission basis, along with other telecallers, invited the informant and other investors to deposit Rs. 1475/- each online into the bank account of a “Financial Establishment” with the promise of disbursing loans. The informant reportedly deposited money twice, but no loan was ever disbursed, leading to the lodging of the FIR. The police seized mobile phones, laptops, and desktop computers during a raid on the Financial Establishment’s office and arrested a total of 24 accused.

Defense Arguments

Neha Shankar Magre’s advocate argued that she was merely a telecaller working on a commission basis and had no direct role in luring or inducing investors. He contended that as an employee, she was simply obeying the orders of Accused No. 1 (proprietor) and Accused No. 17 (manager) of the Financial Establishment. The defense asserted that, even if the allegations were taken at face value, the offenses under Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS and Section 3 of the MPID Act would not apply to her. He further stated that her continued detention was unnecessary as she was willing to cooperate with the investigating agency.

Prosecution’s Opposition

The Ld. APP, instructed by the investigating officer, countered that Magre, as a telecaller, had made direct phone calls to the informant and other investors, insisting they invest money, thus revealing her prima facie involvement. The prosecution expressed concern that if released on bail, she might change passwords to email accounts storing investor data, potentially tampering with evidence.

Court’s Decision

After considering the submissions and perusing the record, Judge N.G. Shukla observed that it was undisputed that Neha Shankar Magre was working as a telecaller on a commission basis or as a salaried employee. 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 Financial Establishment, and Magre was working under their direction.

The court concluded that “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.” Based on this, the judge found prima facie that Sections 316(2) and 318 of the BNS, as well as Section 3 of the MPID Act, would not attract against the applicant.

The court also considered that the applicant’s mobile phone, along with office laptops and desktop computers, had already been seized. It stated that conditions could be imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent tampering with data. Finding it a fit case to grant bail as the applicant was an employee acting under directions, the court determined that further detention was not required.

Bail Conditions

The court allowed Bail Application No. 793 of 2024 and ordered the release of Neha Shankar Magre on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.

Stringent conditions were imposed to ensure her cooperation and prevent interference with the investigation:

• She must attend the office of DCB CID unit on specific dates (October 11, 14, and 16, 2024) and thereafter as and when called by written notice.
• She must provide passwords of email accounts used in the company’s office to the investigating officer and not change passwords or tamper with data in her seized mobile phones, laptops, and computers.
• She shall not leave India without prior court permission and must deposit her passport (or file an affidavit if she doesn’t have one) within two weeks of release.
• She must submit proof of her residential address and contact mobile numbers, along with those of two close relatives, within two weeks and update them if changed.
• She is strictly prohibited from threatening or influencing any prosecution witnesses or hampering further investigation.
• The applicant is permitted to furnish a cash security of Rs. 30,000/- in lieu of surety for a period of four weeks.

The Bail Application 793 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.