SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 156097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR
KETAV RAVANI S/O SHRI AJAY RAVANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
ABA/3441/2025



##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AS:56748 639-ABA-3441-2025.DOC

Akash Tayde

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3441 OF 2025

Ketav Ravani S/o Ajay Ravani …Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra …Respondent

Mr. Ameya Ranade, Advocate for Applicant.

Ms. S.M. Yadav, APP for the State.

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 22nd December 2025

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Ranade, learned Counsel appearing for the

Applicant and Ms. Yadav, learned APP for the State.

2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), the Applicant is seeking

pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.57 of 2025 registered

with Pune City Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable

under Sections 66(C), 66(D), 3(5), 316(2), 318(4) and 61(1) of

the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

3. The prosecution case is set out in Paragraph No.2 of order

dated 03rd September 2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Page 1 of 5

::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 21:57:03 :::

##PAGE2##

639-ABA-3441-2025.DOC

Akash Tayde

Judge, Pune in Criminal Bail Application No.4959 of 2025, which

reads as under :

“2. The facts as per the FIR are to the effect

that the accused persons were illegally running

a call center under the names of a company

called Magnatel BPS and consultant LLP, a

company registered at Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is

alleged that the said company was indulged in

defrauding American citizens by making them

calls and putting them under fear of digital

arrest. The ransom amount in the form of

bitcoins and other modes is alleged to have

been received in India through various means

including Hawala. The accused Nos.1 to 5 are

stated to be the masterminds of the crime who

had employed 117 employees for such

purpose. It is stated that these employees were

trained to communicate with American citizens

in their accents and overawe and intimidate

them to part with money in various ways. 64

laptops and 41 mobile phones were seized in

the process of raid carried out at the illegally

run call center at Pune. The accused Nos.1 to 5

were consequently arrested upon registration

of offence were subjected to police custody for

5 days, after which they are in MCR.”

4. As per the prosecution case, the Accused persons were

illegally running a call center under the name of a company called

Magnatel BPS and consultant LLP, a company registered at Jaipur,

Rajasthan. The said company was indulged in defrauding

Page 2 of 5

::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 21:57:03 :::

##PAGE3##

639-ABA-3441-2025.DOC

Akash Tayde

American citizens by making them calls and putting them under

the fear of digital arrest.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, and as the offence

is very serious in the present case, custodial interrogation is

absolutely essential

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty

alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1489, has held

that the Anticipatory Bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not

to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong reasons

for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person

accused of grave offences. It has been further held that while

called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to

be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to

the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and

may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may

sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. The

said observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to

the present case.

1

Page 3 of 5

::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2025 21:57:03 :::

##PAGE4##

639-ABA-3441-2025.DOC

Akash Tayde

7. The Supreme Court in the case of State Rep. by the C.B.I. Vs.

Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 has held in paragraph No. 6 as follows :

“6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that

custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elici

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top