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