Rahul Radeshyam Bhomavat v. State of Maharashtra
(2020) 2 AIR Bom R (Cri) 791 : 2021 Cri LJ (NOC 265) 82
In the High Court of Bombay
A.B.A. 185/2020
Before Justice P.K. Chavan
Decided on March 17, 2020

Relevancy of the Case: Anticipatory bail application in a case involving allegations of conspiracy to siphon ₹598 crores from a cooperative bank

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65, 66)
• The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (Section 3, 4)
• The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Section 147)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 409, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477, 163, 120B)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The applicant sought anticipatory bail after rejection by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving multiple charges under various provisions mentioned above.
• The prime accused was Chairman of the Pen Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. He was charged with conspiring to siphon ₹598.72 crores from fictitious accounts, causing monetary loss to the Pen Bank.
• The applicant is an Additional Director of Space Mercantile Co. Pvt. Ltd. The FIR alleges that he has colluded with the prime accused and others.
• The investigation revealed the creation of bogus accounts, the transfer of large sums, and the applicant’s involvement in transactions leading to suspicions of financial wrongdoing.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The applicant’s counsel claims that the applicant’s status as a witness in a previous charge-sheet, questions the sudden change in his role to an accused. He further emphasised the lack of evidence connecting him to the alleged offences.
• The special public prosecutor submitted that the applicant’s release could hinder the investigation. The court should consider the case’s complexity involving voluminous documents and the need for expertise from Chartered Accountants, Forensic Auditors, and Computer Experts.

Opinion of the Bench

• The court considered the gravity of the accusations, the societal impact affecting over 1,76,000 investors, and the potential influence on witnesses.
• The court leaned in favour of rejecting the application for anticipatory bail, emphasising the need for a thorough investigation.

Final Decision

• The court rejected the anticipatory bail application and directed the applicant to surrender his password to the investigating agency.

Aditi Mangesh Sawant, an undergraduate student at NMIMS Kirit P Mehta School of Law, Mumbai, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2024.