:1:
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:
2.

Order on BA No.27/24
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
Exhibit No.02.

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.

:3:
Order on BA No.27/24
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
:4:
Order on BA No.27/24
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
8.

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
:5:
Order on BA No.27/24
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
:6:
Order on BA No.27/24
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
:7:
Order on BA No.27/24
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
:8:
Order on BA No.27/24
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