Mumbai, July 25, 2022 – The Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar (Court Room No. 37) rejected the bail application of Zorin Anil Solanki @ Kshitij Desai in connection with a matrimonial fraud case registered at West Region Cyber Police Station (C.R. No. 56/2021). The court cited Solanki’s prior similar offenses, his direct communication with the victim, and the pending recovery of the defrauded amount as reasons for denying bail.

Background of the Case:

Zorin Anil Solanki @ Kshitij Desai was arrested for allegedly defrauding Prinee Morkar, a physiotherapist, of approximately Rs. 20.6 lakhs under the pretext of investing in stocks. Morkar had registered her profile on a matrimonial site, Shaadi.com, where she received a proposal from Solanki. After her profile expired, she received a friend request on Facebook, and they exchanged numbers. Solanki then convinced her and her family to invest in stocks, promising high returns. The case was registered under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian¹ Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66(D) (cheating by personation by using computer resource) and 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act.²

Arguments Presented:

Advocate Vishal Yadav, representing Solanki, argued that his client was falsely implicated and that his identity was misused by his friends, who allegedly created the matrimonial profile without his knowledge. He also argued that Solanki was an investor who helped others with share market strategies and did not receive any money from the complainant. He emphasized that the crime was document-based, and all documents were seized by the police, so there was no risk of tampering.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Anand Sukhdeve, representing the State, opposed the bail application. He argued that Solanki had prior similar offenses, indicating a habitual pattern. He also stated that Solanki had cheated other women using the same modus operandi. He mentioned that the charge sheet was filed, and Solanki’s previous bail application was rejected by the trial court. He further argued that the defrauded amount was yet to be recovered and that Solanki posed a flight risk and could tamper with evidence.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Joglekar, after reviewing the application, the State’s reply, and the case records, noted that Solanki had admittedly registered a matrimonial account on Shaadi.com. The court rejected Solanki’s claim that his friends misused his identity, citing the telephonic communication between Solanki and the complainant.

“In this regard, the learned prosecutor states that there are telephonic communications between the Applicant/accused and the informant and in this concern considering the defence, it has went unexplained that if such matrimonial account of the Applicant/accused was registered by the friends of the Applicant/accused, then in that case, how come the Applicant/accused was in communication with that of the informant. Therefore, in prima facie the theory laid by the Applicant/accused cannot be accepted,” Judge Joglekar stated in his order.

The court also considered Solanki’s prior similar offenses.

“Secondly, it is also evident that similar such offences are also registered against the Applicant/accused,” Judge Joglekar stated.

The court emphasized that it was only required to see if a prima facie case existed, not to conduct a detailed examination of the prosecution’s merits.

“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,” Judge Joglekar stated.

The court concluded that the prosecution’s theory held more weight, especially given Solanki’s prior offenses and the planned nature of the fraud.

“Therefore, the theory laid by the prosecution at this juncture holds bearing more especially in the light of the fact that the Applicant/accused is well accustomed for such acts and has with proper planning asked the informant to transfer such sum by Google pay upon various numbers as tendered by him to the informant. It is also stated that similar such offences are registered against the Applicant/accused and it has revealed during the course of investigation that such other victim girls are cheated by him in similar fashion,” Judge Joglekar stated.

The court also noted that Solanki had not shown any change in circumstances since his previous bail rejection by the trial court.

“Moreover, post filing of charge-sheet the applicant/accused had preferred such application before the Ld. Trial Court and post rejection of the said bail application the applicant/accused has failed to explain any such substantial change in circumstance,” Judge Joglekar stated.

Consequently, the court rejected the bail application of Zorin Anil Solanki @ Kshitij Desai.

Implications and Significance:

This ruling highlights the court’s consideration of prior similar offenses and direct communication with the victim in bail matters, particularly in cases involving fraud. The decision underscores that even if the accused claims innocence and lack of involvement, bail can be denied if there is evidence of prior offenses and direct communication with the victim.

The court’s concern about the pending recovery of the defrauded amount and the risk of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence also reflects a cautious approach, ensuring that the investigation is not compromised and that the accused is available for further proceedings.

The order was dated July 19, 2022, and signed and uploaded on July 25, 2022, at 3:33 p.m.