Mumbai, October 8, 2024 – In a significant development, a Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act) today granted bail to Anirudha Tayaba Sanas (24) and Vikram Rajendra Kumbhar (45), two call executives arrested in connection with an alleged financial fraud. The duo was implicated in Crime No. 76 of 2024 (originally Crime No. 144 of 2024 at Aarey Sub Police Station), involving offenses under sections 316(2), 318(4), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), read with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) and Section 3 of the MPID Act.

Additional Sessions Judge Shri N.G. Shukla, presiding over Court No. 20, pronounced the order after hearing arguments from Ld. Adv. Satyadev Joshi, representing the applicants, and Ld. APP Ms. Chaitrali Panshikar, for the Respondent/State.

Prosecution’s Case: Alleged Cheating by Financial Establishment

The prosecution’s case, presented by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), alleged that the applicants, working as call executives, along with other tele-callers, invited the informant and other investors to deposit ₹1475 each online into the bank account of a “Financial Establishment.” This was done with the assurance of disbursing a loan. The informant reportedly deposited the amount twice but never received the promised loan, leading to the lodging of a police report. The investigation revealed that other investors were also allegedly cheated by the same establishment.

During a raid on the Financial Establishment’s office, police seized mobile phones, laptops, and four desktop computers, and a total of 24 accused individuals were arrested.

Applicants’ Defense: Employees Acting Under Orders

Ld. Adv. Satyadev Joshi argued that the applicants were merely call executives working on a commission basis and had no role in “luring and inducing” investors. He contended that they were simply obeying orders from accused numbers 1 and 17 (identified as the proprietor and manager of the Financial Establishment, respectively). Joshi further asserted that, even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, the offenses under Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS or Section 3 of the MPID Act would not apply to the applicants. He emphasized that their continued detention was not required for the investigation and that they were willing to cooperate.

Court’s Finding: Lack of Personal Dishonest Intent

After considering the submissions and reviewing the case record, Judge Shukla observed that it was undisputed the applicants were tele-callers. Crucially, the court noted that the applicants were working under the direct supervision and instructions of the proprietor (accused No. 1) and the manager (accused No. 17) of the Financial Establishment.

The court explicitly stated, “Thus, even though applicants would have made phone calls to the investors, they had no any personal dishonest intention to lure and induce investors for depositing their money. Applicants were acting on the direction and instructions of proprietor and director of the F.E.”

Based on this, the court concluded that, prima facie, Sections 316(2) and 318 of the BNS, as well as Section 3 of the MPID Act, would not be attracted against the applicants.

Bail Conditions Imposed

Considering that the applicants were employees and that their mobile phones, laptops, and desktop computers had already been seized, the court found it a fit case to grant bail. The bail was granted subject to several conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent tampering with evidence:

• Bail Bond: Each applicant must execute a personal bond of ₹30,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount.
• Attendance at DCB CID Unit: Applicants are required to attend the DCB CID Unit office on October 11, 14, and 16, 2024, and thereafter as and when called by written notice from the investigating officer.
• Password Disclosure: They must provide passwords for email accounts used in the company’s office to the investigating officer and refrain from changing them or tampering with data on seized devices.
• Travel Restriction: Applicants are not permitted to leave India without prior court permission.
• Passport Deposit/Affidavit: They must deposit their passports with the investigating officer within two weeks of release or file an affidavit if they do not possess one.
• Address and Contact Details: Proof of residential address, contact mobile numbers, and the same details for two close relatives must be submitted to the investigating officer within two weeks and updated if changed.
• No Tampering: Applicants are prohibited from threatening or influencing prosecution witnesses or hampering further investigation.
• Cash Security Option: Applicants are permitted to furnish a cash security of ₹30,000 in lieu of surety for a period of four weeks.

The bail application, No. 790 of 2024, now stands disposed of.