Mumbai, October 8, 2024 – In a significant ruling, the Designated Court under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act (MPID Act) at Greater Mumbai granted bail to Shalaka Gautam Kamble, a 34-year-old telecaller, who was arrested in connection with a financial fraud case. The order, delivered by Judge N.G. Shukla, concluded that Kamble, acting as an employee on commission, did not appear to have personal dishonest intent in the alleged scam.

Kamble was arrested in Crime No. 76 of 2024 (initially Crime No. 144 of 2024 at Aarey Sub Police Station), with charges framed 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 sought bail under Section 483 of The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Prosecution Alleges Fraudulent Scheme

The prosecution’s case, presented by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), alleged that Kamble, along with other telecallers, invited the informant and other investors to deposit Rs. 1,475 each online into a bank account of a “Financial Establishment” with the promise of disbursing loans. The informant reportedly made two such deposits, but no loan was ever disbursed. This led to a police report against the Financial Establishment, with other investors also claiming to have been cheated. During the investigation, police seized mobile phones, laptops, and four desktop computers from the F.E.’s office, arresting a total of 24 individuals in connection with the crime.

Defence Argues Limited Role

Advocate Satyadev Joshi, representing Kamble, argued that his client was merely a telecaller working on a commission basis and had no direct role in “luring and inducing” investors. He contended that Kamble was simply obeying the orders of accused Nos. 1 (proprietor) and 17 (manager) of the Financial Establishment. Joshi asserted that the allegations, even if taken at face value, would not attract the severe charges under Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS or Section 3 of the MPID Act against his client. He emphasized that Kamble’s continued detention was unnecessary for the investigation and that she was ready to cooperate.

Ms. Panshikar, the Learned APP for the State/EOW, opposed the bail application, stating that Kamble’s involvement was “prima facie revealed” as she made phone calls insisting on investments. The APP also raised concerns that if granted bail, Kamble might change email account passwords where investor data was stored, thereby tampering with evidence.

Court’s Finding: No Personal Dishonest Intent

After considering both arguments and reviewing the records, Judge Shukla observed that it was undisputed Kamble was employed as a telecaller, either on commission or a payroll basis. Crucially, the court noted that she was working under the direct instructions of the proprietor (accused No. 1) and the manager (accused No. 17).

“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.,” the order stated.

Based on this, the court concluded that Sections 316(2) and 318 of the BNS, as well as Section 3 of the MPID Act, would prima facie not apply to Kamble’s actions.

Bail Granted with Conditions

Recognizing that Kamble’s mobile phone, as well as laptops and desktop computers from the F.E.’s office, had already been seized, the court found it a fit case to grant bail. The Judge emphasized that further detention was not required, provided stringent conditions were imposed.

The court allowed Bail Application No. 788 of 2024, releasing Shalaka Gautam Kamble on bail with the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: Kamble must execute a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.
• Police Reporting: She must attend the office of DCB CID Unit XII on October 11, 14, and 16, 2024, and thereafter as and when called by written notice from the investigating officer, and cooperate in the investigation.
• Password Disclosure and Data Integrity: Kamble must provide passwords of email accounts used in the company’s office to the investigating officer, commit not to change said passwords, and not tamper with data on her seized mobile phone, laptops, and computers.
• Travel Restrictions: She shall not leave India without prior court permission.
• Passport Deposit: Kamble must deposit her passport with the investigating officer within two weeks of her release or file an affidavit if she does not possess one.
• Address and Contact Details: She must submit proof of her residential address and contact mobile numbers, along with the residential addresses and contact mobile numbers of two close relatives, within two weeks of her release, updating them as necessary.
• No Witness Tampering: Kamble shall not threaten or influence any prosecution witnesses or hamper further investigation.
• Cash Security Option: She is permitted to furnish a cash security of Rs. 30,000/- in lieu of surety for a period of four weeks.

The bail application stands disposed of.