Bombay High Court
TEJAS RAHUL BHALERAOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court granted regular bail, holding that the applicant’s alleged role was secondary, the evidence was insufficient to deny bail, and any risk of tampering could be mitigated by strict conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Tejas Rahul Bhalerao, sought regular bail for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 relating to a large-scale digital arrest scam. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was complicit in defrauding a retired professor of Rs.3.57 crore, while the defence argued that the applicant’s name only appeared later in the investigation and that he played a secondary role. The court examined whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence to justify continued detention and whether the applicant could tamper with evidence if released. Finding that the evidence against him was indirect, the risk of tampering was minimal, and the investigation was complete, the court held that further incarceration was unjustified. Consequently, the court granted regular bail with stringent conditions, including a surety bond and compliance directives.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the alleged cyber‑fraud offences.
- Whether the prosecution has established prima facie evidence of the applicant’s direct participation warranting denial of bail.
- Whether there is a risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if released on bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5), 351(2)
- Information Technology Act, 2000 — s. 43, 66(c), 66(d)
Subjects
- bail
- cyber fraud
- digital arrest scam
- secondary participation
- evidence tampering
- Indian criminal procedure
Judgment
6 CriBA No.3740.2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLN. NO. 3740 OF 2025
TEJAS RAHUL BHALERAO
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Navtej S. Desai a/w Mr. Narayan S.
Rajebhosale, Mr. Aniket R. Shingare
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. A. S. Shalgaonkar
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 8th April, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicant has approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 27.05.2025 bearing Crime
No. 378 of 2025 registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, Dist.
Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2),
318(4), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 alongwith
Section 66(c), 66(d) and 43 of Information and Technology Act,
2000.
2. The prosecution's case is that the first informant and
her husband, retired professors in Kolhapur, were defrauded of
Rs.3,57,23,000/- through a digital arrest scam. On 18.04.2025, an
unknown caller posing as a police officer from the "TRAI
6 CriBA No.3740.2025
-2-
Department, Colaba" falsely informed the informant that her
Aadhaar card was implicated in a Rs. 6 Crore money laundering
case involving Naresh Goyal. To further the deception, the accused
initiated a WhatsApp video call featuring individuals in a staged
"Mumbai Police" and virtual court setting. Coerced by fear and
under the pretext of an RBI "verification" process, the informant
was induced to share her bank details and transfer the
aforementioned sum via 11 separate RTGS and NEFT transactions
to various accounts.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is
submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR, and his name
only surfaced during the course of the investigation, based on
statements of co-accused. The alleged offences are triable by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class Court. As the investigation is
complete and the charge sheet has been filed, further incarceration
of the applicant is not necessary. Hence, it is prayed that the
application be allowed.
6. The learned APP has opposed the application and
submitted that the crime is serious in nature and there is sufficient
6 CriBA No.3740.2025
-3-
material on record to establish the complicity of the applicants. If
the applicant is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of
tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, it is prayed that
the application be rejected.
7. Considering the submissions of both sides and a perusal
of the record, including the charge-sheet, the FIR was lodged
against unknown persons and the name of the present applicant
surfaced only during the subsequent investigation on the basis of a
statement of a co-accused. While the prosecution alleges the
applicant’s involvement in a massive fraud involving Rs.
3,57,23,000/-, prima facie in absence of evidence on record to
indicate that the applicant was one of the three individuals who
played a direct role in orchestrating the digital arrest of the
informant application warrants consideration.
8. Moreover, the role attributed to the applicant prima
facie appears to be that of a secondary nature. Since the evidence
is primarily documented in bank records and electronic trails, there
is no risk of the applicant tampering with such evidence, if released
on bail.
9. The alleged offences are triable by the learned JMFC
6 CriBA No.3740.2025
-4-
Court. Nevertheless, the investigation is complete for all intent and
purpose and the charge-sheet is filed. Having regard to the number
of witnesses which the prosecution proposes to examine, it is very
unlikely that the trial can be commenced and concluded within a
reasonable period. The arrest of the applicant has been effected on
05.06.2025 and since then, he is in jail.
10. As such, further detention of the applicant as an under
trial prisoner, in the circumstances of the case, does not seem to
be either warranted or justifiable. I am, therefore, persuaded to
exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. The apprehension
expressed by the learned APP about tampering with the
prosecution evidence can be adequately taken care of by imposing
stringent conditions. Hence, the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following
order: :-
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicant – Tejas Rahul Bhalerao be released on
regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local solvent
sureties in the like amount, in Crime No. 378 of 2025
registered with Rajarampuri Police Station, Dist.
6 CriBA No.3740.2025
-5-
Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections
316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 alongwith Section 66(c), 66(d) and 43
of Information and Technology Act, 2000, on the
following conditions :-
(a) The applicant shall attend each and every date of the
Trial Court unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(c) The applicant shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card to
the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses and
phone numbers of applicant and two of the near
relatives.
(d) Breach of any of the conditions by the applicant
would entail the cancellation of the bail.
(iii) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…