Bombay High Court
DURGESH SARWJET SINGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to both accused as the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered two bail applications filed by Vishal Yadav and Durgesh Singh, accused of operating an illegal call centre that allegedly defrauded Canadian nationals. They were charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Information Technology Act and the Telecommunications Act. The prosecution’s case relied on a voluminous charge‑sheet but failed to produce a prima facie financial trail or demonstrate that the applicants received any proceeds. The court noted the lack of specific evidence linking the accused to recruitment, payment or benefit, and held that the antecedent criminal history did not outweigh the presumption of innocence. Consequently, the court granted bail to both applicants subject to stringent conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail under the cited statutes
- Whether the accused’s alleged role in the illegal call centre warrants pre‑trial detention
- Whether prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of bail
- Whether the conditions imposed are appropriate under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351, 61(2) read with 318(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 324, 326, 506, 509
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 66(c), 66(d)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 12, 7(A)
Subjects
- bail
- illegal call centre
- money laundering
- cybercrime
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Information Technology Act
- Telecommunications Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- prima facie evidence
- bail conditions
Judgment
27.BA.384.2026.doc
Ravindra M. Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
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. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.08.24
20:25:16
+0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…