Bail Application No.851/2024.
MHCC020054372024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 851 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 07 OF 2022.
Vicky Rajkumar Makhija
… Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of BKC Cyber Police Station,
West Division, Mumbai, Vide C.R.No. 07/2022).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. Omkar Chitale for the Applicant.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 06TH APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Vicky Rajkumar Makhija
being accused in C.R.No.07/2022 registered with BKC Cyber Police
Station, West Division, Mumbai, for the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B and
34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”),
Page 1 of 7
Bail Application No.851/2024.
alongwith Sections 43, 66 and 66 (C) (D) of the Information
Technology Act, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (In short, “Cr.P.C.”). This is an application preferred
post filing of charge-sheet.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

Facts of the case are reiterated for the sake of convenience.
It is the case of the prosecution that, in the month of March, 2021, a
lady named Ms. Lucy called the informant and had sent a link to him
which he followed upon instructions of the said lady. Further the
informant was lured with a proposal to earn high profit returns on his
investments and made him to share his credentials including login id
and password. The informant had invested in the gold and silver. The
said Lucy post availing the informant’s login id and password, in
order to win the confidence of the informant the said Lucy had
forwarded him several such accounts and in order to project such
investment of the informant and the same was reflected upon an App.
Thus, the informant went on investing through his and his wife’s
account to the tune of Rs.1,31,40,285/-. Lucy further apprised the
informant that if he withdraws such amount in small sums he wont
get greater profits. Lastly Lucy stated to the informant that there was
a profit of rupees five crores and fifteen lakhs for withdrawal of the
same they need to pay Rs.1 crores as tax. Further, the sum invested
by the invested by the informant was never returned back. Thus, the
informant lodged complaint against the accused persons and offence
was registered under Sections ibid.

3.

During the course of investigation it revealed that, the
amount was transferred and invested in several such accounts. Even
Page 2 of 7
Bail Application No.851/2024.
the names of the applicant/accused and the other co-accused were
revealed during the investigation. It also revealed that such sum were
received in the account of the brother of the applicant/accused who
is stated to be the director in the said company.
4.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused states that, the
applicant/accused is the scapegoat in the present crime and the coaccused qua sister of the applicant/accused being professionally C.S.
had allegedly formed fake companies and the applicant/accused was
made a director in the same. The applicant/accused has categorically
stated that, the company in which he was made director was in
receipt of a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and the said company account is
already freezed by the agency.

Applicant/accused is incarcerated
behind bars since 10.07.2023. It is stated that, the co-accused is
enlarged by the Hon’ble High Court. Hence, the Ld. Advocate for
applicant/accused prayed for enlarging the applicant/accused on
bail.
5.

Per contra the prosecution has filed their reply vide Exh.2,
and inter alia have resisted the application upon various grounds. It is
categorically stated that, the applicant/accused has created a fake
company and have generated fake accounts and have transacted
frequently under large sums from the said account. Prosecution also
apprehends
a
racket
is
functional
inter
state
and
the
applicant/accused is a part of the same. Further, the prosecution
apprehends abscondance, tampering of evidence and threatening to
prosecution witnesses. Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection
of application.
Page 3 of 7
Bail Application No.851/2024.
6.

Heard Ld. Advocate for Applicant/accused and Ld.
Prosecutor for the State. Perused application and reply.

7.

On meticulous examination of the case record it evinces to
myself that, the applicant/accused has admittedly stated that, the
applicant/accused was a director in a fake company established by
his sister, co-accused Dolly Makhija being a company secretary and
also has stated for receipt of a sum to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. Further,
the said account is stated by the respondent agency to be frozen. It is
pertinent that, the co-accused Dolly Makhija has been enlarged on
bail by the Hon’ble High Court in the preceding. It also evinces that,
either accused put under arrest inclusive of the applicant/accused
have made allegations against each other.

On perusal of the
gravamen of indictment against the applicant/accused it is stated
that, he is shown as a director of a fake company established by his
sister i.e. co-accused Dolly Makhija. Undoubtedly, the investigation
has concluded and that, the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter.
8.

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.

9.

Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused has also relied upon the
case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. Vs. State by Adugoldi Police
Station & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 335/2024 (Arising out of Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2877/2021), decided on 22.01.2024,
Page 4 of 7
Bail Application No.851/2024.
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out for the parameters
while invoking section 420 of IPC.
10.

Thus, considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by
the Ld. Advocate for applicant/accused it is evident that, the alleged
trail of sum held in the company account of the applicant/accused
has been freezed and therefore, apart from such amount being traced
under the present crime with regard to the applicant/accused no such
other trail of amount has been stated to have been identified by the
prosecution.

As stated supra, charge-sheet has been filed in the
matter and that the co-accused who has been allegedly attributed
with the role of forming companies has been enlarged on bail.
Therefore, in my considerate view the apprehension of prosecution
can be taken care of by saddling stringent conditions including
marking of presence with that of the respondent agency. In the
backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application deserves
consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
1. Bail Application No.851/2024 is allowed.
2. The applicant/accused Vicky Rajkumar Makhija
being accused in C.R.No.7/2022 registered with
BKC Cyber Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471 read with Section 120-B and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code alongwith Sections 43, 66 and 66 (C)
(D) of the Information Technology Act, be released
on furnishing P. R. bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in
the like amount.
3. The applicant/accused and his sureties shall
provide their respective residential addresses,
Page 5 of 7
Bail Application No.851/2024.
mobile numbers and email addresses, if any. The
applicant/accused shall intimate any such change in
address or telephone number and Email ID
forthwith.
4. The applicant/accused shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the
present case to dissuade them from disclosing such
facts to the Court.
5. The applicant/accused shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence in any manner.
6. The applicant/accused shall attend the BKC Cyber
Police Station on every Tuesday and Friday between
11.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. until further order.
7. The applicant/accused shall surrender his passport
if any with the investigating officer. If the applicant
doesn’t have passport, he will furnish an affidavit to
that effect.
8. The applicant/accused shall not leave India without
permission of this Court.
9. Any breach of the conditions in this bail order shall
entail cancellation of bail forthwith.
10.Bail Application No.851/2024 stands disposed of
accordingly.
Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 06.04.2024.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.06
16:58:44 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 06.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 06.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 06.04.2024.
Page 6 of 7
Bail Application No.851/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
06.04.2024
04.58 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
06.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
06.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
06.04.2024
uploaded
Page 7 of 7