2024 (7) TMI 1068 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - unknown persons had siphoned off huge amount of money by creating fake Demat accounts of shareholders whose shares were lying dormant - active role of applicant or not - HELD THAT - Being a stock broker and in the business of shares, merely because the applicant was in touch with accused No.1 and he forwarded certain whatsapp messages concerning details of shares that could be said to be dormant, in itself cannot be the basis of claiming that the applicant had a major role to play in duping the shareholders (victims). Although it is stated in the charge-sheet that the applicant had an active role to play in opening of fake accounts of such victim shareholders, there does not appear to be any material to support such an assertion. It is brought to the notice of this Court that one of the employees of accused No.1 i.e. Mahadev Gavde, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. has described in detail as to the manner in which the accused No.1 used to open such fake accounts of the victim shareholders. There is no role ascribed to the applicant in the said statement. This Court is of the opinion that the applicant had been able to make out a case to contend that there is scant material to directly link the applicant with the incident in question, leading to registration of the FIR. There is presently no material on record to show that the applicant in any manner could be said to be a beneficiary of the alleged activities that led to registration of the FIR. The applicant has already spent more than 5 Months behind bars and in this situation, this Court is inclined to allow the present application. The applicant shall be released on bail for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on furnishing PR bond of ₹ 1,00,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and subject to fulfilment of further conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Bail application in connection with a financial fraud case involving siphoning off money through fake Demat accounts.

In the judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay, the applicant had applied for bail in connection with a case involving offenses under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The case originated from a First Information Report filed at Police Station Kasturba Marg, Mumbai, where unknown persons were alleged to have siphoned off a significant amount of money by creating fake Demat accounts of dormant shareholders. The investigation revealed that the main accused was identified as accused No.1, while the applicant was accused No.3. The applicant, a stockbroker, claimed innocence stating that he merely forwarded details of shares and had no direct involvement in the offense. The prosecution, however, presented evidence of whatsapp chats and Call Details Records indicating communication between the applicant and accused No.1, suggesting a potential role in the fraudulent activities. The court analyzed the charge-sheet and concluded that while there were communications between the applicant and the main accused, there was insufficient evidence to establish a significant role in the fraudulent scheme. Notably, a statement by an employee of the main accused did not implicate the applicant in the opening of fake victim shareholder accounts. Consequently, the court found that there was scant material directly linking the applicant to the offense, leading to the decision to grant bail. The court ordered the applicant's release on bail upon furnishing a personal recognizance bond and sureties, with strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing individuals involved in the case. The judgment emphasized that any violation of the bail conditions could result in cancellation. It was clarified that the observations made in the order were limited to the bail grant and should not influence the Trial Court's proceedings. The application for bail was thus disposed of by the court.