1

BEFORETHEDESIGNATEDCOURT
UNDERTHEM.P.I.D.ACT
AT
BOMBAYCITYCIVIL&SESSIONSCOURT,MUMBAI

BAILAPPLICATIONNo.49OF2016
IN
MPIDCASENo.1OF2017
(C.R.No.78/2013)

WITH

BAILAPPLICATIONNo.183OF2017
IN
MPIDCASENo.1OF2017
(C.R.No.78/2013)

AND

BELOWEXHIBIT10
IN
MPIDCASENo.1OF2017
(C.R.No.78/2013)

SrinivasRaoVanka.(A4)

MagaralBalaji.(A5)

AditiMitra. ... Applicants.

Accused.
Versus.

StateofMaharashtra. ... Respondents.

 2

Appearance:
Adv.Karnikfortheapplicant.
Adv.SuduttaPatilfortheapplicant.
Adv.Negifortheapplicant.
SPPAdv.GharatfortheState.
Coram:DineshP.Surana.
Spl.Judge,MPIDAct.
(CourtRoomno.36)
Dated:30.03.2017

COMMONORDER

Thesearethebailapplicationsfiledu/sec.439oftheCr.P.C.by
the accused Srinivas Rao Vanka (A4), Magaral Balaji. (A5) and
accusedAditiMitrainC.R.No.78of2013,underinvestigationwith
EOW,SITQnet,Mumbai.
2. HeardAdv.AbbadaPondai/bAdv.KarnikandAdv.Patil
andAdv.Negifortheapplicants.AlsoheardSPPAdv.Gharatforthe
State.TheinterventionapplicationfiledbyinformantGurupreetsingh
Anandwasallowed.Hetoowasgrantedlimitedtimetoargue.As
such,alsoheardintervenerinformantGurupreetsinghAnand.Adv.
PondaandAdv.NegisubmittedthattheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
IndiawaspleasedtograntbailtoMichaelJosephFerreira(A2)and
MalckolmNozerDesai(A3)in WritPetition(s)(Criminal)No.(s).
31/2017,VihaanDirectSelling(I)Pvt.Ltd&Ors...Petitioner(s)
Versus.UnionofIndiaandOrs...Respondent(s),(withappln.(s)
forexemptionfromfilingO.T.andofficereport)byorderdated
27.03.2017. HefurthersubmittedthattheHon'bleApexCourtwas
alsopleasedtostayfurtherproceedinginall19FIRsincludingFIR
under investigation with EOW, Mumbai. He submitted that
 3

applicantstooareentitledtobereleasedonbail.

3. As against this SPP Adv. Gharat insisted for imposed

rigidconditionontheapplicants.

4. IntervenerinformantGurupreetsinghAnandopposedthe
applicationonthegroundthatinvestigationisnotstayedbyHon'ble
ApexCourt.That,applicantsarenotentitletobereleasedonbail.
That, if they are released on bail, they will continue the illegal
activities.That,applicantswerenotthepetitionersbeforetheHon'ble
ApexCourtandnowtheHon'bleApexCourtisseizedwiththematter
andhence,thiscourthasnopowertograntbailtotheapplicants.He
further submitted that applicants should approached before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court only for seeking any relief. SPP and
informantinonevoicecontendedthatapplicantsSrinivasRaoVanka
(A4) and Magaral Balaji. (A5) are also be ordered to deposit
Rs.1.40Croresand1.04Crores,i.e.,theamountofcrimeproceed,
whichtheyhavereceived.InformantalsosubmittedthattheHon'ble
BombayHighCourthas held theactivitiesofQnetasillegalwhich
wasconformedbytheHon'bleApexCourtandassuch,theillegal
activitiesshouldnotbecontinued.Informantprayedforrejectionof
thebailapplication.

5. OnperusaloftheorderoftheHon'bleApexCourtcited
supra,itisspecificallymentionedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
India,thatthereshallbestayinfurtherproceedinginall19FIR's.In
prayerclause'c'ofthepetitionbeforetheHon'bleSupremeCourtof
 4

India,theFIRofEOW,Mumbaiisalsomentioned.Assuch,itisclear
thattillthefinalhearingandfinaldisposalofthepetitionbeforethe
Hon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiathefurtherproceedinginallthe19
FIRs,includingthepresentone,isstayed.Informantcontendedthat
Hon'ble Apex Court has imposed condition on Michael Joseph
Ferreira(A2)andMalckolmNozerDesai(A3)tocooperateinthe
investigationofthecase,whichmeansthattheinvestigationisnot
stayed. However, the point for determination before this court is
limited,astowhether,inviewoftheorderofHon'bleSupremeCourt
ofIndiadated27.03.2017citedsupra,theapplicationsareentitleto
bereleasedonbailornot.

6. Intheordercitedsupra,theHon'bleSupremeCourtof
India, has not taken away the powers of this designated court
u/sec.439ofCr.P.C.Onthecontraryhasgrantedlibertytothiscourt
to impose suitable other conditions. As such, this court has every
powertodecidethebailapplicationoftheaccused.

7. WhentheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiahasalready
granted bail to the coaccused Michael Joseph Ferreira (A2) and
MalckolmNozerDesai(A3),whoareallegedpromoterand80%to
20%shareholdersofM/s.VihanDirectSelling(I)Pvt.Ltd.,thelaw
ofparitywillalsobeapplicabletotheapplicants,whoaredirectorsof
VihanortheIRandtraineroftheQnet.Theroleoftheapplicants,as
regards sec.3 of the MPID Act is concerned, being Director, IR or
trainerwillbelesstotheroleofMichaelJosephFerreira(A2)and
Malckolm Nozer Desai (A3). So also, when the order of Hon'ble
 5

Apex Court is very clear that, there shall be stay on further

proceedinginallthe19FIR'spendinghearingandfinaldisposalof
the petition, there is no propriety in keeping the applicants too
behindthebars.Assuch,Iamoftheviewthatwithstrictconditions
applicantstooareentitletobereleasedonbail.

8. Iwouldalsolike tomentionherethatprimafaciethe
activitiesofQnetseemstobenotlegal.Thereasonsforthesameis
already discussed in the bail orders of the coaccused. Hence,
pendingthefinalhearingofthepetitionbeforetheHon'bleSupreme
CourtofIndia,theycannotbeallowedtocontinuewiththesameor
smilerorlikeillegalactivities.Adv.PondacontendedthatHon'ble
SupremeCourtofIndiainthecaseofMunishBhasinandOrs.,V/s.
State(GovernmentofNCTofDelhi)&Anr.,(2009)2Supreme
CourtCases(Cri)56haslaiddowntheratioastowhichcondition
canbeimposedwhilegrantingbailtoaccused.However,evenasper
sec.437 of the Cr.P.C. such condition can be imposed. The
applicationsarefiledu/sec.439oftheCr.P.Candnotu/sec.438of
the Cr.P.C. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India isin respectof the conditionstobe imposedwhile granting
anticipatorybailtotheaccusedu/sec.438oftheCr.P.C.Assuch,itis
necessary, to impose conditions on the applicants accused not to
indulge in similar or like activities. Such condition will always be
subjecttotheordersofHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiaormodified
bythisdesignatedcourt.Assuch,Iamoftheviewthatapplicantsare
entitled to be released on bail. In the result, I proceed to pass
 6

followingorder.
ORDER
1. Applicationareallowed.
2. ApplicantsSrinivasRaoVanka.(A4),MagaralV.Balaji.
(A5)andAditiMitraareorderedtobereleasedonbailinC.R.No.
78of2013underinvestigationwithEOW,Mumbaifortheoffence
punishableu/sec.409,420,465,468,471,120Bandsec.201ofthe
I.P. Code and sec.3 of the MPID Act, on their executing PB of
Rs.25,000/ each with 2 sureties each of the like amount with
followingcondition:
1. ApplicantshallmarktheirpresencebeforetheI.O.attheoffice
of EOW, SIT Qnet, Mumbai, once in a month on first Monday
between10amto1pmandasandwhencalledbytheinvestigating
agencyinwriting.
2. Applicants would produce their latest and full residential
addresswiththeI.O.andshallnotchangetheiraddresswithoutthe
priorpermissionofthisCourt.
3. ApplicantstosurrendertheirpassportwiththeI.O.if,already
notseizedbytheinvestigatingagency.
4. Applicantsshallnot,withoutthepermissionofthisdesignated
court,leaveIndia.
5. Applicants shall not in any manner dispose off their any
movable property about Rs.10,000/ a week and immovable
property/iesofanyvaluewithoutthepermissionofthisdesignated
court.
6. Applicantsshallcooperatewiththeinvestigatingagency.
 7

7. Applicantshallnotinanymannertamperwiththeprosecution
witnessesorevidence.
8. Applicants shall not in any manner indulge or like similar
activitiesofQnet.
9. Breachoftheconditionno.8bytheapplicantswillbethesole
groundforcancellationoftheirbail.

Date30.03.2017 (D.P.Surana)
SpecialJudge,M.P.I.D.Act.&
Addl.SessionsJudge,
CityCivil&SessionsCourt,
AtBombay.
OrderDictatedon :30.03.2017
Transcribedon :30.03.2017
Signedon :30.03.2017
 8

CERTIFIEDTOBETRUEANDCORRECTCOPYOFTHEORIGINALSIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER

On31.03.2017at05.00p.m.Mrs.V.N.Rajgole.
UPLOADEDDATEANDTIMENAMEOFSTENOGRAPHER

NameoftheJudge(withCourtRoomno.) H.H.J.ShriD.P.Surana,
C.R.No.36
DateofPronouncementofJudgment/Order 30.03.2017
Judgment/OrdersignedbyP.O.on 30.03.2017
Judgment/Orderuploadedon 31.03.2017
9