Mumbai, Maharashtra – April 18, 2024 – Rajkumar Pappu Singh @ Gaurav Kumar Bippin, a 20-year-old student from Gaya, Bihar, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in connection with a franchise fraud case involving the brand “Zudio,” a Tata Enterprises company.

Background of the Case:

Singh was arrested and charged under Sections 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 469 (forgery intended to harm reputation), 471 (using as genuine a forged document) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66(D) (cheating by¹ personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in connection with C.R. No. 312/2023 registered at M.R.A. Marg Police Station, Mumbai.

The prosecution alleged that Singh and other co-accused duped individuals by promising them Zudio franchises, collecting significant amounts of money, and tarnishing the brand’s reputation.

Arguments Presented:

Singh, through his advocate Akshay Ashok Shinde, argued that:

• He was arrested on December 25, 2023, and had been in judicial custody since January 2, 2024.
• The chargesheet was filed on March 28, 2024, indicating the completion of the investigation.
• He was not a direct beneficiary of the alleged fraud.
• The allegation of money transfers to his bank account was false.
• The main accused, in whose name the fraudulent company “Zudio Solution Private Limited” was registered, and Suyog Sharma, an ex-employee of Trent Ltd. and director of the said company, were not arrested.
• He was willing to cooperate with the investigation and abide by any court conditions.

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Ajit Chavan, opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• Some accused were still at large.
• The investigation was not entirely complete.

The intervenor, Trent Ltd., represented by advocate Dhruv Balan, also opposed the bail, arguing that:

• Numerous incidents of cheating were attributed to Singh and his co-accused.
• Significant amounts were collected under the false pretext of Zudio franchises.
• The money trail was yet to be uncovered.
• Many potential accused were still at large.
• The company had not received a copy of the chargesheet.

Court’s Decision and Rationale:

Additional Sessions Judge Dr. S.D. Tawshikar granted bail to Singh. The court considered the following factors:

• Filed Chargesheet: The chargesheet had been filed, indicating the completion of the investigation against Singh.
• Length of Custody: Singh had been in custody for a considerable period.
• Nature of Offenses: The offenses were triable by a Magistrate’s court.
• Indirect Financial Loss: The court noted that there was no direct financial loss to Trent Ltd., but its goodwill was tarnished.
• Victims’ Jurisdiction: The victims were located outside Mumbai, and no separate FIRs were lodged at their instance.
• Cooperation Undertaking: Singh’s advocate undertook to ensure his cooperation with the investigation.

The court concluded that it was just and proper to release Singh on bail, subject to certain conditions.

Bail Conditions Imposed:

The court granted bail to Rajkumar Pappu Singh @ Gaurav Kumar Bippin on the following conditions:

• Personal Bond and Surety: He must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the same amount.
• Police Station Attendance: He must attend the M.R.A. Marg Police Station when called by the Investigating Officer for further investigation.
• No Tampering with Evidence: He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
• No Inducement or Threats: He must not directly or indirectly influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.
• Residence Proof and Contact Information: He must provide proof of residence and an active phone number to the police station within seven days of his release.
• No Further Criminal Activity: He must not commit any criminal act while on bail.
• Bail Cancellation: Breach of any condition would result in bail cancellation.

Significance of the Decision:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the filed chargesheet and the completion of the investigation against the accused when determining bail applications. The court also balanced the rights of the accused with the need to ensure cooperation with further investigation and prevent any tampering with evidence. The fact that the investigation regarding the applicant was completed, and that the chargesheet was filed, were major deciding factors in granting bail.