Order on BA No.27/24 MHCC020001632024

BEFORE THE DESIGNATED COURT UNDER M.P.I.D. ACT CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT, MUMBAI ORDER ON BAIL APPLICATION NO.27 OF 2024 IN C.R. NO. 57 OF 2023

Anilbabu Venkatnarayan Karlapudi
Age : 39 years, Occupation : Business,
Residing at 601, Saubhagya Residency,
Nagal Rao Nagar, S. R. Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500038 and
7-1-383, Bulkampet, Hyderabad – 500083.

Applicant/ ]… Accused

Versus

The State of Maharashtra (Through EOW, Unit-6, Mumbai) … Respondent

Appearances:Ld. Advocate Jagtap for the Applicant. Ld. SPP Seema Deshpande for the State/ Respondent. Ld. Advocate Ponda a/w Ld. Advocate Gaurav Parkar a/w Ld. Advocate Rahul Hakani a/w Ld. Advocate Shreya Gosavi for Intervenor.

CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE ADITEE UDAY KADAM, (Court Room no. 7) DATE : 18th January, 2024.
ORAL ORDER

1.The present application is moved by the Applicant/Accused Anilbabu Venkatnarayan Karlapudi resident of Hyderabad, under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of
regular bail.

2.A case being C.R. No.57 of 2023 is registered with EOW, Unit6, Mumbai (C.R. No.470 of 2023 registered with Sahar Police Station) against the present Applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”).

3.Application is resisted by the Prosecution by filing their say at

4. Prosecution case in nutshell is as under :-

Applicant was working in M/s. D.S.V. Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd. Company (hereinafter referred as “complainant Company”) since 2006 and promoted as a Manager at Hyderabad branch on 01.09.2019. Thereby, he possessed an authority of onboarding procedure at both branches Raidarabad and
Vizag (Vishakhapatnam). It is alleged that with knowledge and intention, applicant uploaded fake documents / agreements of the vendor Companies to the head office of complainant Company. Those vendor Companies were bogus and had no business of transport. Fake invoices were submitted, approved through the computer system of complainant Company and thereby caused economic loss to the tune of Rs.14,41,80,782/(Rupees Fourteen Crores Forty One Lakhs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Two only).

5.Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant, Ld. SPP for the Prosecution, Investigating Officer and Ld. Advocate for the Intervenor at length. Perused the written submissions and documents filed on record with list Exhibit No.06. Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant

6.has been falsely implicated in this case. It has not been revealed during the investigation that a single penny was siphoned by the applicant. Applicant came to be arrested on 04.12.2023. He has co-operated the investigation and submitted all the relevant documents for verification. Applicant has made statement that the money received by Haril Logistics from Lotus Logistics was returned to it. It is further submitted that the applicant has verified all the invoices received and then approved the data for further procedure. He does not have validation to approve processing of request for payment. Thus, he do not have direct concern for the payment of bills. It is further contended that during his long tenor, there was neither any discrepancy was notified in the accounts nor there was any financial mall-function. The applicant left complainant Company in May 2022 and thereafter, the Company is facing business loss. He was mistreated by the senior management for no fault of his and he has been falsely implicated. Complaint is filed after due delay. In support of his contention, he relied on the following authorities:

1.Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648
2.Sanjay Chandra Vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40
3.Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in AIR 2022 SC 3386
4.Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240 Sum and substance of the observations in aforesaid authorities is that – even though nature of offence is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail – bail is the rule and jail is an exception – economic offence cannot be classified into one group and deny bail on that basis. With this Ld. Advocate for the applicant submitted that the applicant be released on bail.

Per contra, Ld. SPP argued that the applicant when working

7.with complainant Company was found to be connected with other Companies. He is common Director of Haril Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and was in contact with Haril Chedda, Proprietor of Lotus Logistics and Artemis Solutions. Prima facie concern of the applicant with alleged offence is revealed. He was the branch Incharge / Manager in complainant Company at Hyderabad and Telangana. His active participation in commission of fabricating / forged documents i.e. preparing fake invoices – approval of the same is revealed. He has used his webcast ID to get sanction of fake invoices.

Huge financial scam to the tune of Rs.14,41,80,782/-(Rupees Fourteen Crores Forty One Lakhs
Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Two only) is revealed. Other accused are to be apprehended. Investigation is at prematured stage. Thorough investigation is to be done. Therefore, it
is prayed by the Ld. SPP that the application be rejected. Ld. Advocate for the Intervenor submitted that the applicant / accused has committed a very serious offence which resulted in huge monitory loss to the complainant Company. Modus operandi of the accused was to bring onboard fake
vendors issuing fake invoices. As per the investigation, Proprietary concern of Mr. Haril Chedda (accused) and the applicant are Directors of Haril Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Money has been transferred from suspicious vendors like Lotus Logistics and others to Haril Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Contacts of the applicant with suspicious vendor Companies is revealed. The accused along with vendor Companies had “overridden the invoice submission process.” The process / method of working by the accused
including applicant is well established by the forensic audit conducted in due course. The contacts between them is also revealed through the digital forensic report. Ld. Advocate for the Intervenor
impress upon the factors to be taken into consideration for bail i.e.

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the Accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the Accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the Accused;
(vi) likelihood or the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by the grant of bail.
Thus, in-all it is submitted that the case of applicant is to be evaluated on the basis of aforesaid factors and it be rejected.

9.On perusal of record it reveals that the applicant / accused was an authority in the complainant Company who used to approve the invoices. He has raised fake invoices for services which were not rendered by the vendor. The invoices to the tune of amount more than Rs.1 Lakh were approved by this applicant. He is a common Director of vendor Company Haril Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Prima facie evidence collected by the Investigating Agency reflects that the payments were made from Lotus Logistics to
Haril Logistics. Applicant is Director of the said beneficiary Company. While applicant was in service of the complainant Company, simultaneously, he was running an independent business through his proprietorship. Contacts between the applicant and another Director of Haril Logistics i.e. Mr. Haril
Chedda is also established. The said Haril Chedda did not turn up in spite of issuing repeated notices to him. His conduct is certainly found to be suspicious one. Prima facie case that approval of fake invoices by the applicant is well established. It is also pointed out by the prosecution that the applicant could not give explanation about the cash deposits in his account, nor cooperated the investigation by furnishing details of his proprietary concern and bank accounts. Thus, documents produced on record
about the preliminary investigation clearly reflects involvement of applicant in a big financial scam. Considering the nature of accusation and investigation thereof, it is quite necessary to
conduct exhaustive investigation.

10.In totality of the circumstances, it reveals that prima facie case against the applicant is established. Considering the modus operandi for commission of offence and scam of Rs.14,41,80,782/-(Rupees Fourteen Crores Forty One Lakhs Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Two only) by the
applicant being prime offender in connivance with other accused, who are yet to be arrested, smacks of a shrude conspiracy and a racket. Involvement of the applicant is no more in doubt considering prima facie documents produced on record. This Court has also minutely perused the authorities relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for applicant. In that regard as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Advocate for the Intervenor, all the cases therein were considered after filing of charge-sheet, which is not the
same in present case. Even otherwise, this Court has considered all the grounds necessary for deciding bail application as set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in aforesaid authorities and thereby, come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence indicating the participation of applicant in a serious crime with a preplanned and well designed conspiracy. In such scenario, alleged medical condition of the applicant cannot be taken into consideration as a ground for grant of bail. Nature of offence is
very much serious as it being an economic offence involving huge financial scam. Punishment to the alleged charges levelled against applicant is certainly severe. Investigation is at preliminary stage. Other accused are yet to be apprehended. Grant of bail to the applicant can stall the investigation. The present applicant is a qualified person and possess deep knowledge of computerize system/software. In such circumstances, if the applicant would be released on bail, there is every possibility that he may flee away from justice and tamper with the prosecution evidence. Hence, the following order is passed :ORDER

1. The present Bail Application No. 27 of 2024 filed by the Applicant/Accused Anilbabu Venkatnarayan
Karlapudi in connection with C.R. No.57 of 2023 is registered with EOW, Unit6, Mumbai (C.R. No.470 of 2023 registered with Sahar Police Station) against the present Applicant for the offences punishable
under Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is hereby rejected.

2. The present Bail Application No. 27 of 2024 is disposed off accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) sd/Date: 18/01/2024 Mumbai (ADITEE UDAY KADAM)
Designated Judge under The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, for Gr. Bombay Dictated directly on computer: 18/01/2024 Signed by HHJ on : 18/01/2024 :9: Order on BA No.27/24 “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT /ORDER”
18.01.2024 at 5.45 p.m. UPLOADED DATE AND TIME Ms. R. D. Tari NAME OF STENOGRAPHER Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) H.H.J. A. U. Kadam C.R. No.07 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 18.01.2024 Judgment /Order signed by P.O. on 18.01.2024 Judgment/Order uploaded on 18.01.2024