Intro Summary

The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay has rejected the bail application of Bharat Deepak Chavan, an accused in a major cyber fraud case (C.R. No. 64/2024) registered at the West Region Cyber Police Station. The case involves complex charges including Cheating, Forgery (IPC Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471), and Cyber Offences (IT Act Sections 66(C), 66(D)), resulting in the informant being duped of over ₹22.44 Lakhs through a fraudulent share trading app. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, in the order dated April 23, 2024, found that the applicant, a director of Ishwari Traders Pvt Ltd, was not merely a scapegoat but knowingly participated in the crime, receiving a commission of ₹30,000/- for allowing his company’s account, which saw transactions totaling over ₹10.76 Crores, to be used for the fraud. Given the extensive scope of the cyber fraud and the ongoing investigation, the Court ruled that releasing him at this stage would hamper the probe.

Prosecution’s Arguments and Case Details

The case centers on a sophisticated “task-based” investment fraud where the informant was induced to join a WhatsApp group, download a fraudulent GSIN share trading application, and transfer money to various bank accounts, ultimately losing over ₹22.44 Lakhs.

• Applicant’s Role: The investigation revealed that ₹8,00,000/- of the cheated funds were credited to the account of Ishwari Traders Pvt Ltd, a company of which the applicant, Bharat Deepak Chavan, is a director.
• Active Participation: The prosecution contended that the applicant, along with co-accused Anil Bhagat, started the forged company, opened the bank account, and handed it over to accused Ajit for forged transactions, receiving a commission of ₹30,000/-.
• Scale of Fraud: The bank account of Ishwari Traders showed massive transactions totaling ₹10,76,84,371/-, indicating wide-ranging fraudulent activity.
• Objection: The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds that the investigation is still in progress, the offense is a cyber fraud with a large scope, and releasing the accused would lead to fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence and witnesses.

Defense’s Arguments

Advocate Sunny A. Singh, appearing for the applicant, argued that Bharat Deepak Chavan was innocent and falsely implicated, having been arrested on March 19, 2024.

• Scapegoat Claim: The defense contended that the applicant was not responsible for the financial transactions and was made a scapegoat by the main accused.
• Investigation Complete: The applicant had undergone custodial interrogation and argued that nothing was to be seized or recovered from him.
• Legal Precedent: The defense cited the Bombay High Court judgment in Gagan Harsh Sharma V/s. The State of Maharashtra to argue that the charges invoked may overlap with the IT Act.

Court’s Analysis and Rationale (Addl. Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne)

The Court found the applicant’s involvement to be direct and intentional, contradicting his claim of being a scapegoat.

1. Intentional Involvement: The Court accepted the prosecution’s evidence that the applicant was an authorized person for the bank account and had knowingly participated in the crime by allowing his company’s account to be used for fraud in exchange for commission.
2. Scope of Investigation: The Judge emphasized the massive scale of the transactions (over ₹10.76 Crores) and the complex nature of the cyber fraud, concluding that the “scope of investigation is large” and is still in progress as the charge-sheet has not yet been filed.
3. Legal Review: The Court considered both the defense’s citation and the recent Full Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak V/s. State of Maharashtra, which clarified that the IT Act does not preclude the application of IPC sections like cheating and forgery when offenses are not adequately addressed by the IT Act alone.
4. Risk Assessment: The Court held that given the serious allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust, releasing the accused at this initial stage would hamper the investigation and increase the risk of evidence tampering.

Based on the seriousness of the offense and the ongoing investigation into the large-scale cyber fraud, the Court rejected the bail application.