The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has rejected the regular bail application filed by Bharat Deepak Chavan, one of the directors of a company allegedly used to channel funds in a major cyber fraud scheme.

Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne (Court Room No. 30) issued the order on April 23, 2024, denying bail due to the serious nature of the cyber crime, the applicant’s proven involvement in the transactions, and the ongoing investigation.

The Cyber Fraud Case

Bharat Deepak Chavan was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 64/2024 registered at the West Region, Cyber Police Station, Mumbai. The charges include multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120(B)) and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 (Sec. 66(C), 66(D)).

The prosecution’s case, as detailed in the FIR lodged by Mr. Gaurav Wadikar, is that the informant was induced through a WhatsApp message to join a share trading group and download a fake “GSIN Application.” He was persuaded to transfer money to various bank accounts under the pretext of investment. While his account showed accrued returns, he was blocked from withdrawing the amount and was asked to deposit more for taxes. The victim was ultimately cheated and duped of Rs. 22,44,945/−.

Applicant’s Active Role Confirmed

The investigation revealed that Rs. 8,00,000/− of the defrauded amount was credited to the account of a company called Ishwari Traders Pvt Ltd, of which the applicant, Bharat Deepak Chavan, is a director.

The court highlighted the applicant’s confirmed role, which went beyond mere passive involvement:

• The applicant, along with an accomplice, allegedly started a forged company and opened its bank account.
• He then handed over this bank account to a co-accused to be used for forged transactions.
• The applicant accepted a commission of Rs. 30,000/− for allowing the account to be used for the cyber fraud.
• The bank account of Ishwari Traders showed huge total transactions of Rs. 10,76,84,371/−.

The Judge concluded that these facts clearly show the accused “knowingly participated in said crime of cyber fraud” and was an “authorised person” for the banking transactions.

Bail Rejected Due to Serious Nature and Ongoing Probe

The defense counsel relied on precedent arguing that the IT Act should prevail, but the prosecution countered that the IPC charges (forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust) were necessary as the IT Act did not adequately cover the full scope of the offences. The court agreed with the prosecution, citing a recent full bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak V/s. State of Maharashtra, which held that the IT Act does not preclude the application of the IPC where offences are not adequately addressed.

Given that the investigation is still in progress, the charge-sheet is not yet filed, and the scope of investigation in a cyber fraud case is “large,” the court ruled that releasing the accused “will hamper the investigation” and there are chances he “may tamper with the prosecution evidence.”

Criminal Bail Application No. 918 of 2024 was rejected and disposed of accordingly.