Bail Application No.1140/2024.
MHCC020070402024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1140 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 33 OF 2024.
1. Kawal Ramesh Malhotra,
…Applicants.

2. Ayush Kawal Malhotra.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Matunga Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.33/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Sunny Waskar for the Applicants/accused.
Ld. APP. Ms. Ashwini Raikar for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 15TH MAY, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicants Kawal Ramesh Malhotra
and Ayush Kawal Malhotra being accused in C.R.No.33/2024
registered with Matunga Police Station for the offences punishable
Page 1 of 6
Bail Application No.1140/2024.
under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) alongwith Section 66 (C)
and 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act, seeks bail under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short,
“CrPC”).
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of prosecution that, the accused No.1, 3 and 4
have defrauded the public inclusive of the informant by forming a
Whatsapp group and sending fake links on the Whatsapp numbers in
order to gain financial benefits and thus cheating the public at large.
It is stated that,the applicants/accused have asked the informant to
send an amount of Rs.49,35,000/- and that the accused No.1
withdrew such amount at various places in the Country through cash,
cheque or ATM and post such withdrawal forwarded the said amount
through the courier services of accused No.2 and which were
received by the accused No.3 and 4 at their Delhi Office. The said
transaction was under Hawala and with the aid and under the Crypto
currency. Thus, the offence was registered under Sections ibid.

3.

Ld. Advocate for applicants/accused state that, the
applicants/accused are falsely implicated and that the main accused
Ashish Ghatala is the real artist behind the curtain. It is stated that,
the said amounts were asked to be investigated by the accused No.1
and those were transferred in various other accounts.

Further,
recovery was effected from accused No.1 post his arrest. It is stated
that, the applicants/accused are arrested without any concrete
Page 2 of 6
Bail Application No.1140/2024.
evidence or documents and that they cannot be connected in the
present crime.

It is also stated that, there is no any financial
transaction of the applicants with the co-accused.

Nothing is
recovered from the applicants/accused and that it is the accused No.1
and 2 who are involved in the present crime, so also there are no
allegations pertaining to the financial transactions against the
applicants/accused and therefore, further incarceration is not
necessitated. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for applicants/accused prayed
for enlarging the applicants/accused on bail.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that, the amount received by the applicants
and the co-accused is yet to be recovered. Further, the accused No.1
and wanted accused namely Vijay and Sudhir had opened bank
accounts and has withdrawn cash from the said accounts and the said
amount was sent via accused No.2 to accused No.3 and 4. Further,
the other facets of the present crime are under investigation and
therefore, the applicants/accused are required for the purposes of
confrontation. As such prosecution further apprehends abscondance,
tampering of evidence and threatening to prosecution witnesses.
Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.

5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused the application and reply.

6.

On copious perusal of case record it palpably evinces that,
the gravamen of indictment against the applicants/accused is that,
Page 3 of 6
Bail Application No.1140/2024.
they are recipients of such Hawala fund received in cash send by
accused No.1 through accused No.2. In this regard, the records qua
the bank statements and CDR propel for such acquaintance of the
applicants/accused with that of the co-accused.

Further, the said
amount being received by the applicants/accused was further
confronted under online exchanges under an App Binance and the
said amount in turn was held under USDT i.e. cryptocurrencies at
HongKong. Further, the said fund was sold and then in turn
purchased by one Pankaj and Aman.

Thus, apparently the
prosecution seems to have unveiled the racket operating under the
present crime.
7.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.

8.

Further, considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by
the Ld. Advocate for applicants/accused it is evident that, although
the applicants/accused have denied for such acquaintance with that
of co-accused, but the CDR and other such documentary record
propels for such acquaintance between either of them.

So also,
considering the quantum of sum and that racket functional under the
present crime in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in case of P. Chidambram such enlargement would naturally derail
the
momentum
of
investigation,
more
especially
when
the
investigation is proceeding towards unveiling of an economic offence.
Therefore, there is every possibility that, the applicants/accused if
Page 4 of 6
Bail Application No.1140/2024.
enlarged might disposed/divert the proceeds and tamper with the
evidence and therefore, I do not find this as a fit case for grant of
bail. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.1140/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

Dr. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 15.05.2024.

Digitally signed by
Dr. ABHAY AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.05.17
15:27:03 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 15.05.2024.
Transcribed on : 16.05.2024.
HHJ signed on : 17.05.2024.

Page 5 of 6
Bail Application No.1140/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
17.05.2024
03.26 p.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
15.05.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
17.05.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
17.05.2024
uploaded
Page 6 of 6