Mumbai, January 18, 2024 – The City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, has rejected the bail application of Anilbabu Venkatnarayan Karlapudi, who is accused in a multi-crore financial fraud case involving M/s. D.S.V. Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd. The order was passed by Judge Aditee Uday Kadam under the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act.
Case Background
Karlapudi, a former manager at the Hyderabad branch of the complainant company, allegedly misused his authority by onboarding fake vendor companies and submitting fraudulent invoices, causing an economic loss of Rs. 14,41,80,782 (Rs. 14.4 crore). The case, registered as C.R. No. 57 of 2023 with the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Unit-6, Mumbai, includes charges under Sections 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution’s Arguments
The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Seema Deshpande, strongly opposed the bail plea, citing Karlapudi’s active role in the scam. The court was informed that Karlapudi had direct connections with Haril Logistics Pvt. Ltd., a key beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions, and had used his official webcast ID to approve fake invoices. The prosecution argued that granting bail at this stage could jeopardize the ongoing investigation, as several other accused individuals are yet to be apprehended.
Defense’s Claims
Karlapudi’s defense, led by Advocate Jagtap, contended that he had been falsely implicated and had no direct involvement in siphoning funds. The defense emphasized that Karlapudi had cooperated with the investigation and that the prosecution failed to establish any personal financial gain. They also argued that delays in filing the complaint indicated a lack of substantial evidence.
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the case details, the court found prima facie evidence of Karlapudi’s involvement in approving fake invoices and facilitating fraudulent transactions. The judge noted that the accused held a key managerial position and had direct connections with other implicated individuals, making him a flight risk.
The court highlighted that economic offenses of such magnitude require a thorough investigation and stated that releasing Karlapudi on bail could hinder the probe. Observing that the case is in its preliminary stages, the court ruled that the gravity of the offense outweighed the arguments presented by the defense.
Conclusion
Considering the severity of the allegations and the ongoing nature of the investigation, the court rejected Karlapudi’s bail plea, underscoring the necessity of exhaustive scrutiny in financial fraud cases. The order reinforces the judiciary’s stance on holding individuals accountable in high-value economic offenses.
The bail application stands dismissed, and the case will proceed as the investigation unfolds.
