P.C . :

1. Heard Mr. Hagare, learned Advocate for Applicant and Ms.Gotad, learned APP for Respondent-State.

2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking bail in connection with C.R. No.0638 of 2025 registered with Hinjewadi Police Station, Pimpri- Chinchwad, District Pune for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 112(2) read with section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The Applicant in the present case was working as a sourcing consultant for companies known as “Flynaut OPC” and “Flynaut SaaS Pvt. Ltd.” One of the said companies, namely, Flynaut OPC, provided training to candidates who voluntarily enrolled themselves with the company for obtaining specialised training in the field of Information Technology upon payment of a fixed fee. The candidates were informed that, upon completion of the training, a placement agency would recruit eligible candidates in its sister concern, namely, Flynaut SaaS Pvt. Ltd. Depending upon their performance, the candidates, once employed in the sister company, were also paid a stipend of Rs. 15,000/- per month for a period of three months to enable them to acquire further skills and prepare themselves for future career prospects.

4. The prosecution case is primarily based on complaints lodged by unsuccessful candidates who could not secure placement with the sister company. According to the prosecution, more than 177 candidates were aggrieved by the alleged failure of the company to provide them with placement, and, on this basis, the company and its directors have been accused of offences punishable for cheating and criminal breach of trust.

5. However, the material placed on record before this Court after completion of the investigation indicates that more than 400 candidates had voluntarily enrolled themselves with the company, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated by Flynaut OPC. Significantly, upon completion of the training, more than 200 eligible candidates were provided placement in the sister company, namely, Flynaut SaaS Pvt. Ltd., on the basis of their respective eligibility and competency. The prosecution has also placed on record material indicating that such candidates received the assured stipend of Rs. 15,000/- per month for a period of three months during their further training with the said company.

6. The grievance of the first informant and other similarly placed candidates appears to be that they were not provided placement in the sister company. However, the material on record prima facie indicates that the candidates were duly informed of the terms and conditions governing their enrollment and placement. The offer letter, which was voluntarily accepted by the candidates, categorically stipulates that completion of the internship would not guarantee continued employment and that their appointment as full-time employees, on probation for a period of nine months, would be subject to their meeting the requisite internal performance standards and fulfilling the criteria for onboarding.

7. Thus, the allegation against the Applicant is essentially that the company failed to offer placement to certain candidates on account of their performance and failure to meet the prescribed eligibility criteria. In view of the material prima facie available on record, the Applicant, who was working merely as a sourcing consultant, cannot be held responsible for the failure of the company to provide placement to candidates who did not meet the requisite performance standards.

8. Having regard to the specific role attributed to the Applicant, the material collected during the course of investigation and the overall circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

9. Even otherwise, the Applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity, inasmuch as the founder member and Director of the said company has already been enlarged on bail