Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.4. He also submitted that as per the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act, the amounts which were collected by the petitioner and other accused from the victims/customers in the name of accused No.1 agreeing to pay the said amount with interest comes within the ambit of deposit. Hence, the ingredients under Section 5 of the Act are specifically applicable to the present case.

6.5. He further submitted that accused Nos.4, 8, 10, 11 and 18 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.Nos.3521 and 3620 of 2025 seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime Nos.10, 11 and 12 of 2025 on the file of the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Police Station Cyberabad, and the same was dismissed on 26.03.2025. He also submitted that accused No.17 in Crime No.10 of 2025 and 11 of 2025 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.3637 of 2025 and 3640 of 2025 for grant of anticipatory bail and the said criminal petitions were dismissed by this Court on 28.03.2025. Similarly, accused No.7 in Crime No.10 of 2025 has approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.3940 of 2025 seeking for grant of regular bail and this Court dismissed the same on 02.04.2025. The grounds which are raised by the petitioner in the present case are also similar in nature and the investigation is under progress and the prime accused are absconding. The petitioner has played a key role in accused No.1 company and he also one of the prime accused in the crimes and there are specific and serious allegations are levelled against him and huge amount belonging to the innocent victims were transferred and diverted from accused No.1 company to the account of the petitioner and other accused and to their shell companies and misappropriated the same. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail and these criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed.

7.3. Learned counsel further submitted that one of the victims sent mail to Dabur Cares and TATA 1 MG to ascertain the affairs of accused No.1 in turn they sent reply mail to the victims on 11.05.2025, wherein they specifically stated that they are not having any association or affiliation with Falcon Group and they were not parties to any of the agreements and have no involvement whatsoever in the Falcon and they have not given authorization to use of its name and trademark by Falcon in any manner and any deposit done by the victim with Falcon was at their own risk and subject to the agreement between the victim and Falcon. She further submitted that accused No.1 is Director and Shareholder in 14 companies in India, 4 companies at abroad and the petitioner and other accused diverted the huge amount into their accounts and their shell companies. The petitioner is also having important role in 'VIRGO HOLDING', which is a shell company of accused No.4.

11. The specific case of the prosecution is that during the course of investigation, investigation agency found that under the guise of Invoice Discounting in the name of Falcon, the accused persons have collected huge amount of Rs.4,215 Crores from 7,560 deposits all over India and accused No.1 company diverted an amount of Rs.792 Crores to the account of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell companies and also misappropriated the amounts of the victims.

12. The specific case of the prosecution as well as unofficial respondent that the petitioner is having major role in accused No.1 company and he is Chief Operating Officer (COO) and he is managing day-to-day affairs of the company including business operations, strategic planning, implementation, financial management-financial operations, budgeting, policy development and implementation, customer experience, talent acquisition and employee management etc. In support of their contention, they relied upon the document namely 'Strategic Investment Proposal', which was filed along with the counter affidavit. The said document clearly reveals that the petitioner has signed as C.O.O. of Falcon group as authorized signatory. Similarly, other documents also reveal that the petitioner himself in his website specifically mentioned that he is the C.O.O. of accused No.1 company. Whether the petitioner has discharged his duties as C.O.O. or only as Consultant of accused No.1 company will come into light after full fledged investigation or during the course of trial.

14. The record further reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner that he and other accused have received the huge amounts from the victims under the scheme of Invoice Discounting and returned the interest as well as principal amount upon maturity to the victims up to January, 2025 only. Thereafter, the petitioner and other accused have failed to remit the interest and the principal amount to the victims. The specific case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 company diverted the amounts belonging to the victims into the accounts of accused Nos.2 to 24 and their shell companies and misappropriated their amounts. The record reveals that in the agreement there are specific clauses incorporated, such as, maturity date, repayment date, and period of deposit and rate of interest payable to the depositors/victims along with principal amounts. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the amounts which were received by from the victims under the guise of the scheme 'Falcon' comes within the meaning of deposit as envisaged under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 5 of the Act is applicable.