Mumbai, Maharashtra – July 26, 2022 – Bhaskararao Ramulu Yesupogu, accused in a multi-crore cheating and forgery case, has been denied bail by the Additional Sessions Judge Dr. A.A. Joglekar (C.R. No. 37) in Greater Bombay. The court rejected Bail Application No. 956 of 2022, related to C.R. No. 01 of 2022 registered with DCB CID Unit-VII.
Yesupogu was arrested and charged under Sections 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document),1 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).2
Case Background:
The case originated from a complaint filed by Rajni Rana, who alleged that she was approached by Ali Hashmi, who introduced her to Yesupogu. Yesupogu claimed to have sold a precious metal pot to a Canadian company, Cameco Corporation, for €15 billion. He stated that €6.7 billion (₹55,000 crore) had been transferred to his account but was frozen by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) due to unpaid taxes. He asked Rana to invest money, promising her a 40% share of the funds. Rana gave him ₹30,000 as an advance at a hotel.
During the investigation, police found that Yesupogu had forged documents from various Indian administrative offices and multinational banks to support his claims.
Arguments and Court’s Reasoning:
Yesupogu’s counsel, Adv. Jagdish Singh, argued that his client was falsely implicated, the FIR was erroneous, and the offense was triable by a Magistrate. He also claimed parity with co-accused Ali Hashmi, who was granted bail, and stated that there were no prior criminal records against Yesupogu.
The prosecution, represented by APP Abhijeet Gondwal, opposed the bail, stating that Yesupogu was a professional cheater. They presented evidence of forged documents and PDF files recovered from his mobile phone, indicating his active involvement. They also informed the court that Yesupogu had forged documents from various institutions, and correspondences were being exchanged to verify these documents. They expressed concerns about Yesupogu absconding and tampering with evidence.
The court, after examining the case records, found that Yesupogu was intercepted at the scene with the co-accused and that incriminating material was recovered from his mobile phone. The court also noted that Yesupogu had failed to explain his presence at the scene and his connection with the co-accused.
“On meticulous examination of the case record it evinces to myself that admittedly, the Applicant/accused was intercepted on the same spot along with the coaccused. The retrieved data from the mobile of the Applicant/accused categorically shows his active involvement in the present crime. Apart from the same, certain other incriminating and objectionable material was seized from the said accused. So also the Applicant/accused has failed to explain the very purpose of his presence over the spot and the Applicant/accused has also not denied his connection with that of the coaccused,” Judge Joglekar stated.
The court also noted that Yesupogu’s previous bail application was rejected by the Magistrate Court, and he had not presented any substantial change in circumstances to justify granting bail.
“Considering the case in hand it is evident that the Applicant/accused in connivance with the coaccused had forged documents in the name of various central institutions, national and international banking institutions and the agency has corresponded with such institutions pertaining to receipt of such returned correspondence with regard to such documents. Therefore, the role of the Applicant/accused is apparently established,” Judge Joglekar concluded.
Decision:
Judge Joglekar rejected Yesupogu’s bail application, concluding that there was sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the alleged offenses and that the investigation was ongoing.
The certified copy of the judgment was issued on July 26, 2022. This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the evidence presented, the severity of the alleged offenses, and the ongoing investigation when denying bail in a complex financial fraud case.