Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amit Keswani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2020
Author: Shailendra Shukla
Bench: Shailendra Shukla
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020
(Amit Keswani vs. State of MP)
Indore, dated :04.11.2020
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Priyank
Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant is present in person
through Video Conferencing.
Shri R. S. Parmar, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the
non-applicant - CBI is present in person through Video
Conferencing.
Heard. Perused the case diary.
This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of bail. Applicant - Amit Keswani S/o A. R. Keswani is
implicated in Crime No.RC221/2016/E0029 registered at Police
Station - CBI/EO-III, New Delhi for allegedly committing
offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read
with 34 of IPC along with Section 66-D of the I.T. Act, 2000 and
he is in custody since 09.10.2020.
2. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of
written complaint filed by Mohd. Afsar Alam, Inspector of
Police, CBI/EO-III, News Delhi. It was alleged in the complaint
that various Indians residing or working in Singapore were
cheated by fraudsters in India by contacting them through
spoofed calls, impersonating themselves as Singapore
immigration authorities and the receivers of the calls were told
that they had furnished false information in the disembarkation
form at airport, which may lead to institution of criminal cases
against them and ultimately deportation. The victims were asked
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020
(Amit Keswani vs. State of MP)
to pay a settlement fee, which were sent by them through
Western Union in India as per the details provided by the
fraudsters from the year 2013 onwards.
3. A preliminary enquiry revealed 18 such transactions in
which money was received from nine victims. The money sent
by the victims from Singapore were withdrawn at Bhopal by the
fraudsters using Western Union transaction facility. During
investigation, it was revealed that all 18 transactions were made
to sub-agent of Western Union namely, M/s Oxygen located at E-
3/45, Arera Colony, Bhopal (M.P.). The money totalling to
Rs.7.00 lacs was sent by 9 victims in the name of 12 receivers in
India. The present applicant Amit Keswani is the owner of M/s
Oxygen at Bhopal.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that
applicant is innocent, that the receivers were authorized to obtain
money sent through Western Union by affirming their credentials
through MTCN (Money Transfer Control Number) number
which was available only with the receivers at Bhopal. These
MTCN numbers were provided by the Western Union company
to the sender who communicates the same to the receivers. It has
been mentioned that M/s Oxygen was infact a sub-representative
of a company namely, M/s Weizmann Forex Ltd. which was a
representative of Western Union Financial Services Inc., a U. S.
company. It is further submitted that M/s Oxygen had processed
the transactions in favour of the receivers by following due
process and by taking solid proof of the identification of the
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020
(Amit Keswani vs. State of MP)
receivers. He also submits that all said 12 receivers were
accompanied by one Anirudh Mishra. When they approached
M/s Oxygen for receiving the money that was sent through
Western Union, the receivers duly provided MTCN number
along with their ID proofs. The entire amount was paid to
Anirudh Mishra only after receiving the MTCN number and
upon the request made by said receivers to pay the amount to
Anirudh Mishra. Thus, neither the applicant nor M/s Oxygen
was the beneficiary from the said 18 transactions and that entire
amount was paid to Anirudh Mishra at the instance of the
receivers. The applicant has produced copy of some of the
vouchers indicating payment of money to Anirudh Mishra
(Annexure-A/3). It has further been stated that there is no
rationale to keep the applicant incarcerated. The incident had
occurred in the year 2013 and FIR was lodged only in the year
2016 and that applicant has been arrested only after four years of
lodging of FIR, that applicant has always cooperated with the
investigation. All the documents which were required by the
investigating agency were duly provided by the applicant, that on
09.10.2020, a notice was issued to the applicant to attend the CBI office and on the same day at around 7.30 AM, a search was conducted in the house of the applicant and certain documents were seized and applicant was arrested the same evening alleging that he was involved in the commission of the present case and that he is not cooperating in the investigation and is not revealing modus operandi and the names of other co-accused persons.
4THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020 (Amit Keswani vs. State of MP) These actions of CBI are malafide as per the applicant. It has further been submitted that owner of another firm namely, M/s Guru Kripa Tours and Travels, Kurukshetra was levelled with the exactly similar allegations but he has been granted regular bail by the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Haryana, Panchkula. M/s Guru Kripa Tours and Travels has been shown to be involved in the crime of similar nature in RC-221/2016/E0028 and the case of CBI that two victims namely, Arindam Lahiri from Singapore and Akshay Khambolja from USA had deposited money in Western outlet, which was later on withdrawn from M/s Guru Kripa Tours and Travels and also from M/s Oxygen. Thus, in identical case, owner of M/s Guru Kripa Tours and Travels namely, Aditya Bharadwaj has been enlarged on bail and the case of present applicant is not different from Aditya Bharadwaj therefore, he also deserves to be enlarged on bail. The commission of M/s Oxygen was very nominal in every transaction and the whole money has been received by Anirudh Mishra and no motive can be read against the applicant for the same.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that so far charge-sheet has not been filed but looking to the fact that FIR was registered way back in the year 2016 and that applicant has been cooperating with the investigation since then therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant incarcerated indefinitely. This is the first offence registered against the applicant and no complaint has ever been made against him by 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020 (Amit Keswani vs. State of MP) any other person. The payment was made to Anirudh Mishra by the applicant's company and such payment was well within the knowledge of the receivers who had accompanied Anirudh Mishra and on these grounds, bail has been sought.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the applicant is prepared to deposit Rs.7.00 lacs under protest although he is not even remotely responsible as alleged by the prosecution.
7. A detailed reply has been submitted by the non-applicant- CBI. It has been submitted that there are two common victims who had deposited the money through Western outlet and the money has been withdrawn from M/s Guru Kripa Tours and Travels, Kurukshetra and also from M/s Oxygen, Bhopal. This itself shows that there is common link between the present applicant and the accused at Kurukshetra. These two outlets were thus, connected to a common mastermind who was controlling the withdrawal of payments at both the outlets. Learned counsel for the CBI has further submitted that statements of receivers, in whose name money was sent were recorded and they have stated that they were not aware of these fraudulent transactions and even do not know the senders residing in Singapore. Such receivers have stated that their IDs were used by Amit Keswani and his associates. It has been submitted that in view of statements of victims residing in Singapore make it amply clear that they were cheated and defrauded in the name of government officials. It has also been apprehended that the IDs of receivers were misused by Amit 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020 (Amit Keswani vs. State of MP) Keswani and his associates and this was the reason why his residential premises were searched and he was given notice. However, Amit Keswani has not provided adequate answers and has remained in-cooperative. Applicant Amit Keswani has misused the IDs of receivers, that there was no reason for the receivers to accompany Anirudh Mishra and there was further no reason for the applicant to hand over the money to Anirudh Mishra hence, applicant is involved in the conspiracy. The applicant has not given any information regarding particulars of callers, location of call centres, method of spoofing calls and collecting confidential information of victims. Learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that the reason for the delay was that the offence had taken place in the year 2013 but the FIR was registered only in the year 2016 and huge task of tracing the victims were carried out by making concerted efforts by way of connecting with the High Commission of Singapore, various passport offices across India and airline companies and with much difficulty, the victims could be traced out and all these exercise consumed time, that there are very strong incidence available against the applicant and he is definitely involved in a huge conspiracy and that the matter has still not been investigated and efforts are being made to unravel the names of other conspirators.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant in his oral submissions has submitted that applicant deserves to be granted bail as his case is at par with the case of Aditya Bharadwaj, who 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020 (Amit Keswani vs. State of MP) has been granted regular bail by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Haryana, Panchkula and the prosecution has not been able to show that the applicant was the beneficiary and that any forgery was committed by the applicant. He has referred to a citation of the Apex Court in the case of Sheela Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj, 2018 (7) SCC 581 in which it has been held that charge of forgery cannot be imposed against a person who is not maker of false documents in question. In the aforesaid case, no relationship was revealed between the imposter and the accused and the Trial Court was carried away with the fact that accused is the beneficiary and miserably failed to prove that the transaction was fraudulent and forged transaction.
9. Rival contentions were considered.
10. The case of the applicant is that all the receivers had accompanied the person called Anirudh Mishra and the money was given by the applicant to Anirudh Mishra only. It is not the case of the applicant that Anirudh Mishra was his associate. One fails to understand as to how different receivers were accompanied by the same person i.e. Anirudh Mishra. This itself creates a doubt about the aforesaid person Anirudh Mishra who was either working in league with the present applicant or he is a non-existent person. The receivers in their statements have denied accompanying such person called Anirudh Mishra. They have even denied to have known the victims who had sent the money in their names. All these receivers have stated that their IDs were used by Amit Keswani and his associates. In para-7 of 8 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020 (Amit Keswani vs. State of MP) the reply, it has been mentioned by CBI that the applicant himself arranged IDs of his own customers without their knowledge and consent to make fraudulent transactions and Anirudh Mishra could not have been known the receivers who were the customers of Amit Keswani. In para-10 of the reply, it has been mentioned that most of the receivers happened to be regular customers of Amit Keswani who used to receive money from their relatives or friends located in foreign countries.
11. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that the applicant made use of already existing IDs of such persons who had received money from their relatives from abroad and such IDs were used in obtaining money from the victims. The receivers did not know about the MTCN numbers and the applicant appears to have fraudulently obtained MTCN number in the name of such receivers and submitted vouchers showing receipt of money by such receivers and were shown to be handed over to one Anirudh Mishra who remains at large. It is a question as to whether said person even exists or not. It has been mentioned in the reply that more such transactions have been unravelled apart from 18 transactions referred to in the present case and the investigation for tracing out the victims and other conspirators is still going on. The delay has been properly explained by the CBI. There is substance in the submissions that two of the victims at Singapore have been made to send money not only to M/s Oxygen, company of the applicant but also to M/s Guru Kripa Tours and Travels, a company at Kurukshetra. This shows a link between 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C No.41735 of 2020 (Amit Keswani vs. State of MP) these two companies and an unholy alliance of trans-state confederation or clique of persons conspiring with each other to defraud innocent victims is very much on the cards.
12. In view of the above circumstances with investigation still remaining incomplete with the whole gamut of conspiracy having still not been unravelled and the impugned operations transcending boundaries of the country, it would not be appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail. This bail application stands dismissed accordingly.
(Shailendra Shukla) Judge gp Digitally signed by Geeta Pramod Date: 2020.11.07 10:31:39 +05'30'