MHCC020030002024
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GR.BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 438 OF 2024
Vishwas Vijay Shetye
An Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Age-40 years, Occ. Nil
Residing at – Nisarg CHS., Bldg.No.10,
Flat No.302, Manisha Nagar, Gate No.1,
Kalva, Thane.

….Applicant/accused.

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
Through Byculla Police Station
( In. C.R. No. 468/2023 )
… Respondent.

Ld. Advocate Mr. Deepak S.Paikrao for applicant/accused.
Ld. APP Mr. Siroya for State.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE
SHRI.R.R.PATARE (C.R.NO.01)
DATED :5th DAY OF MARCH, 2024.
(DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT)
ORAL ORDER
Perused application, say and heard advocates for the
parties. This application is filed on behalf of accused seeking bail in
connection with Crime No. 468 of 2023 registered with Byculla Police
:2:
station for offences punishable under section 419, 420 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 66-C and D of the Information and Technology Act.
Crime no.468 of 2023 is registered on the report made by one Nikita
Kariwal , wherein she alleges that on 26/09/2023 she received message
from
Whats
app.

According
to
her
she
was
informed
that
esky.hranjalipatel has accepted her profile for the purpose of home base
job. She believed on the same message and completed the task given to
her.

She was offered with monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- plus
commission. Accordingly she accepted the proposal as she was also
searching for
Online job.

According to her she received one link
htpps;;/www.eskyrkbok.cc and accordingly she opened her account on
the said link as per the instruction. She also supply details of her bank
account and bank account of her brother.

Thereafter informant was
given training and also received a sum of Rs.800/- in the bank account
of her brother. The informant was given task of booking 84 air-tickets
and was asked to invest a sum of Rs.10,500/- for that purpose. The
informant completed the task and received amount of Rs.16,273/- by
way of commission. The informant deposited a sum of Rs.33089/- as
per directions , however she did not received any amount. Informant
also paid additional amount of Rs.6,68,764/-from different UPI, Googal
pay and RTGS and MPS, however she did not receive any amount.
Thereafter she realised that she was cheated by the other side.
Thereafter she reported the said incident to police. It is the allegation
of prosecution that transaction of Rs.1.17 crores was made from the
account of applicant/accused and in return applicant/ accused received
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards commission for that purpose.
2.

The learned advocate for applicant/accused made reference
:3:
to the Chargesheet and try to demonstrate that there is no evidence to
connect accused in the commission of offence. He further pointed out
that investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed. The custody of
interrogation of accused is not necessary. He would further argued that
applicant/accused is falsely implicated. The applicant/accused was not
having any intention to cheat any person. The learned advocate would
argued that bail is the rule and jail is exception.
3.

The learned advocate relied on the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Cases of 1)Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. Vs.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP reported in AIR 1978 SC 429; 2)
State Of Rajasthan ,Jaipur Vs. Balehand @ Baliay Reported in 1978
SCR (1) 535; 3) State Through C.B.I Vs. Amaramani Tripathi Reported
in 2005(6) SCC 492; 4) Sanjay Chadra Vs. C.B.I. Citation Nil and case
of 5)Sushant Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal Reported in 2012 (2)
Supreme 136;
I have gone through the Judgments cited supra. From
the cumulative reading of Case laws, it is settled that a person cannot
be deprived of his personal liberty unless it is necessary to do so. It is
also settled that basic rule is bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing the person from bail.
4.

The learned APP for State opposed the bail application on
the ground that allegations made against accused are of serious and
grave nature . There is evidence to connect accused in the commission
of offence.

APP also apprehend, tampering of evidence
and the
accused fleeing from the bail.
5.

The allegations are made that accused has opened bank
:4:
account and permitted to use the same by co-accused for Online fraud.
According to prosecution amount of Rs.1.17 crore are transfer in the
bank account of applicant /accused and applicant /accused received
Rs.5,00,000/-towards commission from the co-accused.

There is
evidence to suggest that amount is transferred in the bank account
maintain by the applicant accused.

There is evidence to connect
accused in the commission of offence. It is seen that Online fraud are
increasing day by day and innocent person are
allegations made
cheated.

The
against the applicant /accused are of serious and
grave nature. The tampering of evidence and accused fleeing from bail
cannot be ruled out in the present case as pointed out by APP for the
State. The facts in the case laws cited supra and facts of the present
case are not identical , hence will not come to the help of applicant /
accused. In such circumstances accused cannot be enlarged on bail. In
the result following order is passed.
ORDER
1.

Bail application No.438 of 2024 stands rejected and
disposed off.

Date : 05.03.2024.
Dictated on
Typed on
Signed on
: 05.03.2024.
: 05.03.2024.
: 05.03.2024
(R.R.PATARE)
Addl.Sessions Judge,
City Civil and Sessions Court,
For Greater Bombay
( C.R.No.1)
:5:
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE 06.03.2024
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER(G-I)
Mrs. V. V. Mhatre
TIME:
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.)

HHJ Shri R. R. Patare
(Court Room No.1)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT/ORDER
05.03.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on
05.03.2024
JUDGEMENT/ORDER uploaded on
06.03.2024