Interim Order 5

Order Details: Bail Order
Pdf Text: C. C. No. 1904 PW 2022 State Vs J. Sudhakar Reddy and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-009146-2022
COMMON ORDER BELOW FOLLOWING BAIL APPLICATIONS
1. B.A. No.4335/2022 – Mr. Ajaykumar Arunkumar, Accused No.12, Exh.25
2. B.A. No.4337/2022 – Mr. Sanjay Virbhan Arora, Accused No.9, Exh.26
3. B.A. No.4549/2022 – Mr. Rakshit Nagraj, Accused No.16,
Mr. Sushant Sundaram, Accused No.17, Exh.28
4. B.A. No.4879/2022 – Mr. Sneh Sameer Somani, Accused No.8, Exh.
1. The background of the matter and other aspects are already
discussed in previous bail order dated 20.10.2022. There is no need of its
repetition. After the release of some of the accused persons by granting
bail vide this order, now the present applicants filed above mentioned
applications on various grounds which can be summarized as follows.
2. The summary of all these applications is that the investigation
relating to accused persons is over and charge sheet is also filed. Majority
of the accused persons are already on bail. The accused persons are
innocents and are falsely implicated in the matter. They are working under
other persons who are not yet arrested and used accused persons. They are
ready to remain abide by the conditions. They are of tender years. They
are having good reputation and future prospects, etc.
3. The Investigating Officer as well as Ld. A.P.P. objected to the bail
applications. The summary of their objection is that the active
involvement of all the applicants/accused persons is noticed in the
allegations. It is transpired during investigation that they were involved in
activities of disbursement and coerced recovery of the loan amount along
with forceful high returns, relating to various applications. They siphoned
of huge amounts recovered from customers across India and abroad
through various bank accounts and using crypto-currencies. Substantial
evidence in the form of hardware and soft data collected against accused
persons showing their active involvement. There is possibility of
1/5
-- 1 of 5 --
C. C. No. 1904 PW 2022 State Vs J. Sudhakar Reddy and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-009146-2022
tampering of evidence and fleeing away of accused persons from trial.
They may not turn up. The investigation is still incomplete. Merely
because charge sheet is filed accused can not be released for these
reasons.
4. The submissions of both the parties are in tune with respective
contentions. Accused persons also relied on citations of Supreme Court
and other High Courts, illustrating the principles of grant of bail and the
legal position that intermediary can not be prosecuted.
5. Admittedly investigation is over. All the material, including
hardware and soft data, from the custody of accused persons already
collected. The majority of the accused persons are already on bail. If we
go through the record these applicants were found to be mainly involved
either as their employees or facilitating the online activities relating to
transactions, generally not associated with the work of recovery of loan
amount.
6. All these applicants are in custody for substantial time and all the
relevant material from their custody is collected. The investigation on its
basis is over and charge sheet is also filed. The witnesses, are mainly
informant and other interested persons. Their evidence is mainly based on
electronic transactions about which data is already generated and such
data is already seized, produced with chargesheet and is also in custody of
bank or other stakeholders, who are independent persons. Thus,
possibility of tampering is almost nil.
7. Majority of the accused persons are educated, having technical
backgrounds and below the age of 30 or 35 years. All of them are either
working with companies or running companies for earning livelihood for
themselves and their families. They are permanent residents of the places
2/5
-- 2 of 5 --
C. C. No. 1904 PW 2022 State Vs J. Sudhakar Reddy and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-009146-2022
situated within India and having sound backgrounds. They and their
parents belonged to reputed families. Investigation relating to them is
over and their presence can be secured as all the applicants/accused are
ready to follow bail conditions.
8. The evidence collected reflect that it runs in several pages. It
involves various hard and soft data generated through enumerable
electronic transactions, performed by so many persons about transactions
spread across various places in India and abroad. The examination of
those witnesses, proving all documents after commencement of trial will
take substantial time. It means the possibility of conclusion of trial within
limited span of time by keeping the accused in detention is almost nil.
9. Further, for this purpose it is necessary to bear upon the citations
relied by one of the applicant. Applicants mainly relied on observations
made by Supreme Court, mainly in the matters of, P. Chidambaram Vs.
Enforcement Directorate ((2020) 13 SCC 791), Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I. ((2012) 1
SCC 40), P. Chidambaram Vs. C.B.I. ((2020) 13 SCC 337), wherein the
principles of granting bail, are enunciated, besides other citations.
10. The summary of the above citations is that while granting bail, the
nature of accusation and severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension
of tampering of evidence, reasonable possibility of absconding of
accused, character, behavior and standing of the accused and larger public
interest needs due consideration. Further, if charge sheet is filed the
balance approach is needed. Merely because there is strong evidence the
liberty can not be curtailed for indefinite period. Pre-trial detention is not
permissible and must be avoided, even if there found prima facie strong
evidence. Factors denying bail only on the ground of seriousness of
offence are not justifiable to reject bail, if speedy trial is not possible. The
3/5
-- 3 of 5 --
C. C. No. 1904 PW 2022 State Vs J. Sudhakar Reddy and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-009146-2022
bail is matter of discretion and such a jurisdiction is to be exercised only
on the basis of well settled principles having regard to facts and
circumstances of particular case.
11. The present offence is triable by this court itself. As observed
above the possibility of tampering of evidence or absconding of accused
is almost nil. During investigation it is transpired that the persons mainly
involved in the formation of syndicate are from other countries and they
are not yet arrested and it appears that out of all the present applicants
some of them, who are of tender age, holding sound educational
backgrounds, were used by main culprits. No doubt these persons also
found to be involved voluntarily, but these aspects deserves some
consideration for limited purpose of bail. If we considered these facts and
circumstances in the light of above guidelines issued by Supreme Court in
several judgments, it can be said that the prayer for bail deserves due
consideration and in view of above discussed facts and circumstances,
legal and factual aspects of the matter, following order -
ORDER
a. All the bail Applications are allowed.
b. The above accused persons/applicants, are released on bail on their
furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.30,000/- each.
c. Permission granted to furnish one or more sureties for the amounts
of surety bond ordered.
d. One month time is allowed to furnish S.B., in the mean time
permission granted to deposit cash security provisionally in substitution
of surety bond for one month.
4/5
-- 4 of 5 --
C. C. No. 1904 PW 2022 State Vs J. Sudhakar Reddy and ors.
CNR No.MHMM18-009146-2022
e. It is further directed that the accused persons shall also furnish their
detailed addresses, names and addresses of their parents and sureties, in a
printed format, along with their addresses and I.D. proofs.
f. Accused persons shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and
shall remain present before Investigating Officer, whenever called by him.
MUMBAI (KOMALSING RAJPUT)
DATE – 21.12.2022 M.M., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
5/5
-- 5 of 5 --