Mumbai, February 28, 2024 – Sanjay Kumar Uprety alias Basant Dilliram Sharma, a director of Configt India Private Limited, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay in a multi-crore cyber fraud case. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. S.D. Tawshikar (Court No. 10) issued the order on February 26, 2024.
Uprety was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 251 of 2023, registered at the Cuffe Parade Police Station, Mumbai, for offenses under Sections 384 (extortion), 465 (forgery), 466 (forgery of record of court or public register, etc.), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating1 and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of2 the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 66(c) (identity theft) and 66(d) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) of the Information Technology Act.3
Background and Allegations:
The complainant, a 71-year-old woman, was allegedly duped of Rs. 4,35,50,277 by individuals posing as government officials. They falsely claimed that her deceased husband’s Provident Fund (PF) had increased to Rs. 11 crores and induced her to deposit various amounts under the guise of taxes and fees.
The prosecution alleged that Uprety, as a director of Configt India Private Limited, played a significant role in the fraud. An amount of Rs. 69,53,088 was deposited into the company’s account and subsequently transferred to overseas bank accounts. The prosecution also alleged that Uprety used multiple names and forged identity documents.
Arguments Presented:
Advocate Ravi P. Jadhav, representing Uprety, argued that his client joined the company only six to seven months before the incident and was a salaried director with no involvement in day-to-day monetary transactions. He emphasized that Uprety was arrested on suspicion and had been in custody since October 31, 2023. He also highlighted that the charge sheet had been filed and a co-accused, Hemant Sharma, had been granted bail.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ajit Chavan opposed the bail, arguing that Uprety’s position as a director, his use of multiple identities, and the large amount of money involved indicated his active involvement and intent to cheat. He expressed concerns that Uprety might engage in similar activities if released.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
Judge Tawshikar noted that Uprety had been in custody for nearly four months, the investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed. The court also acknowledged that the amount received by the company had been recovered and that Uprety had no prior criminal record.
The court considered the principle of parity, noting that co-accused Hemant Sharma, facing similar allegations, had been granted bail. The court also reiterated the observations made while granting bail to Hemant Sharma, stating that there was no concrete material showing active involvement of the accused, and that the investigation against the accused was almost concluded.
Considering these factors, the court granted bail to Uprety.
Bail Conditions:
Uprety was granted bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount. The following conditions were imposed:
- Uprety must not leave India without prior permission from the trial court.
- He must visit the Cuffe Parade Police Station for investigation related to absconding co-accused when called by the Investigating Officer with written intimation.
- He must not tamper with prosecution evidence.
- He must not influence or threaten any witnesses.
- He must provide proof of residence and his active phone number to the police station within seven days of his release.
- He must not commit any criminal act while on bail.
- Breach of any condition will result in the cancellation of his bail.
- Bail to be furnished before the learned Trial Court.
Order Details:
The order was dictated on February 26, 2024, transcribed on February 27, 2024, corrected and signed on February 28, 2024, and uploaded on the same day at 5:30 p.m.
This decision reflects the court’s consideration of the completion of the investigation, the recovery of the defrauded amount, the principle of parity, and the imposition of conditions to ensure Uprety’s compliance with the legal process.