01-ABA-349-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.349 OF 2025 Mahesh Krishna Rao Bandi ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent —————— Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala a/w Subhash Hulyalkar, Sabiha Ansari, Aisha Shaikh, Pooja Khandekar, Sarah Khan, Trusha Choube & Anshu Agrawal i/b Hulyalkar & Associates, for the Applicant. Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w Sumitkumar Nimbalkar, for the CBI. —————— Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J. Date: August 24, 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard Ms. Ganediwala, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation. 2. By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Applicant is seeking pre- arrest bail in connection with FIR No. RC2312024S0010 registered with Central Bureau of Investigation (International Operations Division), New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 61 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66D and 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Arjun 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.08.25 18:42:14 +0530 01-ABA-349-2025.doc 3. It is the submission of Ms. Ganediwala, learned Counsel for the Applicant that a learned Single Judge by Order dated 20th November 2025 has directed that the Applicant shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer on 8th December 2025 and thereafter as and when called by the Investigating Officer, as the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS has been issued to the Applicant. She submits that, accordingly, the Applicant appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer on 8th December 2025 and thereafter as and when called. She submits that the Applicant has completely cooperated with the investigation. She submits that there are a total of 28 Accused and out of which 27 have been released on default bail, as the Charge-sheet could not be filed during the prescribed period. She further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is necessary. She submits that, although the offence is of cheating under Section 318 of BNS, there is not a single person who has come forward to state that he has been cheated. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for the CBI, submits that the offence is very serious where the Applicant and Co-Accused were operating call centers at four places. He submits that, in fact, the Applicant is the main Accused, as the Applicant has taken the subject premises which was at Hyderabad to conduct a call center in the name and style of M/s. Viajes Solutions, represented by its Managing Partner Arjun 2 01-ABA-349-2025.doc Aedla Hareesh S/o. Aedla Pandu and during investigation it was found that although the Lease Agreement was in favour of M/s. Viajes Solutions, in fact, the premises was taken on lease by the Applicant. He further submits that the offence is very serious where the Applicant and other Accused were operating illegal call centers in the name and style of M/s. Atriya Global Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. V. C. Informetrix Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Viajes Solutions at Ahmedabad, Vishakhapatnam, Hyderabad and Pune since June 2024. He submits that the Accused persons are allegedly engaged in a large scale transnational technology enabled financial crime network. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel further submits that, in fact, the Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the victims of digital arrest related to forged documents and has issued several directions. He submits that, therefore, the Anticipatory Bail Application be dismissed. 5. Perusal of the record shows that, on 28th July 2024, the Accused persons targeted one US victim Mr. John online, falsely informing him that criminal investigation had been initiated against him and that internal revenue service of the US Treasury had already been informed about the suspicious transactions in his bank account and they induced the victim to transfer 20,000 USD from his bank account in the account provided to him by the accused persons for securing his innocence. 6. It appears from the record that, accused persons targeted Arjun 3 01-ABA-349-2025.doc another US victim on 11th July 2024 and induced the victim to transfer an amount of USD 20,000 and thereby defrauded the said victim. It is revealed that on 23rd July 2024, the Accused persons targeted another US victim online and induced the victim to deposit Crypto Currency (BTC) worth USD 15,000 in the Crypto Wallet maintained in the name of the Accused persons. It is further alleged that the Accused persons have targeted several other US victims online under the guise of providing tech support services and fraudulently got access to their computer systems and bank accounts through remote access software and defrauded them. The accused are using sophisticated means to channelize proceeds of crime and disperse it illegally. 7. Insofar as the present Applicant is concerned, the material collected during investigation, show that a Lease Agreement was executed by one Morampudi Chandrasekhar, in his capacity as Executive Director of MC Consulting Engineers Private Limited with M/s. Viajes Solutions, represented by its Managing Partner Aedla Hareesh, by which premises i.e. the entire 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor located at MC Design House, Rohini Layout Hitech City, Near Cyber Tower, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500 081, was taken on lease. 8. The statement of Mr. Morampudi Chandrasekhar, shows that the transaction of the said Lease Agreement was, in fact, with the Applicant and the Applicant had represented that he was the owner of M/s. Viajes Arjun 4 01-ABA-349-2025.doc Solutions and after negotiating with the Applicant the lease amount was fixed. The statement of Mr. Amarender Reddy, shows that he is the distant relative of the Applicant and he had executed the said Lease Agreement as a Witness as per the request of the Applicant. The statement of said Aedla Harish shows that he studied up to 10th Class and due to poor financial condition, he started working in one Internet Cafe near his house and learnt about net-working. In the said statement he has stated that one Sahil Vanjara had taken his signature on the aforesaid Lease Agreement, who is also an Accused. The statement of one Laxman S/o Tasil Naik was also recorded. In the said statement, he has stated that he educated only up to Class 3 and he is engaged in real estate business and work as an Agent in leasing the properties and that the Applicant contacted him and told him that he was looking for space to run his business and he was going to install about 100 work-stations of computer system support related business of his firm M/s. Viajes Solutions and, accordingly, the premises which are the subject matter of the said Lease Agreement dated 12th June 2024 has been shown by him to the Applicant, which the Applicant has approved and, thereafter, the Lease Agreement was executed. 9. Thus, the material on record clearly shows that the Applicant is not only involved in the crime but the Applicant has played the main role. Arjun 5 01-ABA-349-2025.doc 10. The contention of Ms. Ganediwala, learned Counsel for the Applicant that the offence is punishable only up to 7 years, as 27 out of 28 Accused have already been released on default bail and as the custodial interrogation is not necessary and therefore the Applicant should be granted anticipatory bail, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances. As per the settled legal position, while considering a Bail Application/Anticipatory Bail Application, certain parameters are required to be taken into consideration. 11. The Supreme Court in the decision of Y v. State of Rajasthan 1, has held that— “9. ...The grant of bail requires the consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case before the Court. There is no straitjacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.” (Emphasis added) 12. Thus, on the touchstone of above parameters, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 13. The Supreme Court, in view of the large number of cases of “digital arrest”, has taken suo motu cognizance and issued several 1 (2022) 9 SCC 269 Arjun 6 01-ABA-349-2025.doc directions. 14. This is a case where, as noted earlier, the Applicant has a prime role. 15. Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. 16. The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Arjun 7