Prassanashil Digamber Mahajan vs. State Of Maharashtra

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties. It was undisputed that Rs. 32,50,000/- was credited to the bank account opened by the Applicant and subsequently transferred. However, the Court noted that the Applicant did not receive any portion of this amount after its transfer. The Court found it unclear whether the Applicant was a beneficiary of the offense. The Applicant had been in custody for one year and had no prior criminal record. Given these factors, the Court was inclined to grant bail, opining that the Applicant was not likely to abscond or tamper with evidence, and the trial would take time. The Court directed the Applicant's release on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond and sureties, regular attendance at the police station, attending court proceedings, not tampering with evidence, and not indulging in similar activities. The Court explicitly stated that its observations were confined to the bail application and should not influence the trial court's decision on the Applicant's guilt.

Facts

The Applicant, Prassanashil Digamber Mahajan, sought bail in connection with C.R. No.35 of 2025 registered at Cyber Police Station, Worli, Mumbai. The case involves alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The prosecution alleges that between November 27, 2024, and February 11, 2025, the informant was induced to invest Rs. 1,20,02,000/- in the share market by individuals posing as representatives of M/s. AK Capital Services Ltd. After the informant was asked to deposit Rs. 54,00,000/- as GST on the investment to withdraw profits, he realized he was cheated. The investigation revealed that Rs. 32,50,000/- of the informant's money was transferred to the Applicant's bank account. The Applicant was arrested, and a charge-sheet was filed. Bail applications before the Magistrate and Sessions Court were rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be released on bail in connection with C.R. No.35 of 2025, considering his alleged involvement in facilitating the transfer of Rs. 32,50,000/- to his bank account, which was subsequently transferred to other accounts as part of a fraudulent scheme. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The Applicant argued that he was not involved in inducing the informant to invest. He claimed he opened the bank account at the insistence of co-accused (A2 and A3) who promised government subsidies. He further contended that A2 and A3 obtained a SIM card in his name and committed the offense using that number. The Applicant asserted his innocence, highlighted that he has been incarcerated for one year, has no criminal antecedents, and his family is suffering hardship. He also stated that he did not receive any amount from the Rs. 32,50,000/- transferred to his account. Respondent/State: The State argued that the Applicant knowingly aided and assisted A2 and A3 in opening the bank account through which the fraud was committed. They pointed out that the Applicant was in constant contact with the co-accused before the amount was credited to his account, and this was the basis for the rejection of his bail applications by the lower courts. The State contended that the Applicant had not presented any material to contradict the reasons for bail refusal.