27.BA.384.2026.doc Ravindra M. Amberkar IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 384 OF 2026 Vishal Tejhbahadur Yadav .. Applicant (Accused No. 3) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1111 OF 2026 Durgesh Sarwjet Singh .. Applicant (Accused No. 2) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Ali Kasshif Khan Deshmukh a/w Ms. Snigdha Khandelwal, M. Farid Shaikh, Mr. Jafar Khan, Mr. Tauqeer Alam & Mr. Abrar Burondkar, Advocate for Applicant in BA 384/26  Mr. Mohammad Shayan Usmani a/w Ms. Sakshi Baadkar, Advocate for Applicant in BA 1111/16  Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for State  Mr. Kuldeep Patil a/w Ms. Saili Dhura, Mr. Anay Joshi & Mr. Sumitkumar Nimbalkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Khan Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Applicant, Mr. Karmakar in BA 384/26; Mr. Usmani, learned Advocate for Applicant in BA 1111/16; Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for State and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. 2. This is a group of two bail applications. The Applicants are arraigned as Accused No.1 and 2 in the crime. Accused No. 1 is 28 1 of 6 27.BA.384.2026.doc years old and Accused No.2 is 29 years old. They are incarcerated for the past one year. Sections invoked are 61(2) read with 318(2), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 351 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, under Sections 7(A) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Sections 3(1), 42(1) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons were running a call centre rather an illegal call centre from where they were targeting Canadian nationals into making deposits and siphoning of the amounts which were deposited. In so far as the issue of financial trail in such a charge is concerned notwithstanding chargesheet of 8000 pages having been filed, the same has not been established prima facie though it is the prosecution case that the Applicants were actively involved rather they were the protagonist for the call centre. The principal accused persons are not yet apprehended. 4. In so far as Accused No.1 - Durgesh Sarwjeet Singh is concerned, he is represented by Mr. Usmani. He is a resident of Malad and has a family comprising of his wife, mother, father and brother. His antecedents as candidly informed by the Mr. Usmani are with regard to Sections 324, 326, 506 and 509 of the IPC. He is also been indicted under the Arms Act in the year 2016 which is almost 10 years ago 2 of 6 27.BA.384.2026.doc during which time he must be of 18 years of age. In so far as the present crime is concerned, his role as attributed by the prosecution to him is that of supervisor of the persons who were the dialers, verifiers and closers of the call script / centre. 5. Mr. Patil has vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that he played a principle role in the crime, rather in running the illegal rented call centre, he is also been instrumental in leasing or taking on rent the concerned premises from where the illegal / fake call centre was being operated. Mr. Patil would submit that every three months the crime syndicate operating in present case would change their location so as to evade detection. 6. Submissions made by Mr. Usmani are to the effect that active role shown by the prosecution in either recruiting persons who were employed or of delegation of any work to them or disbursement of any payment to them is not attributed to accused No. 1 and hence, it enures to the benefit of the Applicant and therefore he would persuade the Court to consider the application for bail. Reliance is also placed by the learned Advocate for the Applicant on the WhatsApp conversation which prima facie does not show any active role of the Applicant. 7. In so far as the role of Accused No.2 is concerned, his name is Vishal Jadhav, he is represented by Mr. Khan-Deshmukh. He would submit that the specific and precise role of the Accused No.2 has not 3 of 6 27.BA.384.2026.doc been established by the prosecution. Neither the prosecution has been able to show that the Applicant has been recipient or beneficiary of a single rupee which came to be transferred to his bank account. He would vehemently submit that if the charges invoked by prosecution are seen, the monies had to come to the bank account and from the bank account they were required to be transferred and only then they could be shown as beneficiaries, but nothing of such sort has been shown or attributed to the Applicants. He would submit that the recovery which has been made by the prosecution is from the Applicant’s house in Malad which is of Rs.1.2 Crores cash, 600 grams of gold jewellery and seven cars. The prosecution has also recorded the statements with regard to the business of the Applicant’s family members otherwise. However, considering the case of the prosecution and rather the case not being so precise and specific about both Applicants' role, I am unable to accept the submissions of the prosecution. In that view of the matter both Applicants have made out a case for grant of bail. Both the accused – Applicants are released on bail subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) Both the Applicants are directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with Crime No. RC 0682025E0005/2025 registered with CBI, EBO, Mumbai; (ii) Applicants are directed to be released on bail on 4 of 6 27.BA.384.2026.doc furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each (Rs. One Lakh each only) with one surety of the like amount; (iii) Applicants shall report to the concerned Investigating Officer, once every month on the first Sunday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; (iv) Applicants shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order; (v) Applicants shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; (vi) Applicants shall not influence with any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicants shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as applicable; and (viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant. 8. Needless to state that the above observations will not come in the way of trial as they are prima facie in nature based on the submissions made and the material placed before this Court. 5 of 6 27.BA.384.2026.doc 9. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 6 of 6 RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Digitally signed by RAVINDRA MOHAN AMBERKAR Date: 2026.08.24 20:25:16 +0530