AARISH SHAIKH FAKARUDDIN LOKHANDWALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants who have been arraigned for the offences punishable under Sec. 120(B), 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("Penal Code'), Sec. 66B, 66C, 72(1) and 75 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and sec. 25A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 have preferred this application for pre-arrest bail.

(2.) The indictment against the applicants is that the applicants were operating a Shell Company Alreef Trading Private Limited. The applicants had employed a number of persons including the co-accused, who were apprehended on 27/11/2019. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the applicants and other accused illegally used the VPN (Virtual Personal Network) system and ran a call centre. The applicants made a false representation to foreign nationals of availing to them loan facility, particularly to those who had low credit rating. They gained the confdence of such persons and made them to part with personal login ID, Password or ATM number, PIN number and a VOID cheque bearing the signature. The applicants and the accused committed forgery of the VOID cheuqe by making use of electronic means. Further, the applicants issued a forged loan sanction letter and transferred 13% to 15% of the sanctioned amount, representing that said amount was towards processing fees and tax. Thereafter, the accused made such customers to purchase wall mart card or ebay card etc. and further deceived them to part with the card number and PIN number and, eventually, got the amount transferred dishonestly.

(3.) The applicants claimed that the applicants have not at all indulged into the activities attributed to the applicants. None of the foreign nationals, who were allegedly deceived, has come forward to lodge report. Nor the investigating offcer has been able to show that any amount was credited to the accounts of the applicants. Thus, even if the prosecution case is taken at par, no offence can said to have been prima-facie made out. Moreover, all the 19 accused, who were apprehended in the instant crime, have since been released on bail. Hence, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not at all warranted.