sjs

ABA-1083.2012

C
ou

rt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1083 OF 2012
Ashok Bahirwani
Vs.
State of Maharashtra

....

Applicant

....

Respondent

om

ba
y

ig
h

S/Shri Ahmad Abdi with Satyaprakash

Sharma and Awadhesh Mourya i/b Abdi
& Co. for the Applicant.
Ms R.M. Gadhvi, APP, for the State.
Shri Pradeep Gharat, Special PP for
EOW.
Shri A.H.H. Ponda with Ms Jyoti Singh
and S.S. Rajan i/b Phoenix Legal for
for Speak Asia.
Shri Navniit K. Khosla, Original
Complainant, present.

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.

DATED: JANUARY 09, 2013

P.C:

1.

This

is

an

application

for

anticipatory bail by one Ashok Bahirwani, who

himself claims to be a victim of the activities
of

Speak

called

as

Asia

Online

the

Pte.

Company).

Ltd.
The

(hereinafter
Company

is

registered in Singapore.
Page 1 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2016 19:09:06 :::

ABA-1083.2012

The

learned

counsel

for

the

Company

C
ou

2.

rt

sjs

was also heard and he stated that the Company

wanted to do away with intermediaries and bring
products

to

consumers

directly

from

the

undertake

surveys

requirements

of

wanted

in

conducting

such

order

consumers.

to

Company

ig
h

manufacturers. For this, the Company wanted to

to

know

the

Therefore,

the

panelists

for

enlist

surveys.

Now,

since

the

ba
y

panelists were laymen, they had to be trained

into conducting such surveys. Therefore, they
were made to subscribe to an e-magazine, which

om

was

mailed

individuals

directly
in

the

to
art

those
of

un-initiated

conducting

the

surveys. For this the panelists were required

to pay `11,000/- each to the Company. It seems
that

if

panelist

succeeded

in

enrolling

persons on the Panel List of the Company, such

panelist was to get some reward points. Also,
for every survey conducted, the panelist would

Page 2 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2016 19:09:06 :::

sjs

ABA-1083.2012

rt

get reward point. At this stage, the learned

out,

and

usefully

in

C
ou

counsel for the Company intervenes and points

my

view,

that

the

subscription for the e-magazine was to go to

Haren

Ventures,

sister

of

the

more better since it

ig
h

Company. This is all the

concern

shows the ingenuous ways in which the Company

works. The panelists were to get their reward
and

panelist

it

was

also

points

concerned

promised

would

get

that

every

chance

of

ba
y

conducting two surveys in a week and in 52

weeks

the

panelist

concerned

would

get

om

`52,000/- against his investment of `11,000/-.

3.

According

learned

Special

to
PP,

the
twenty

estimate
lac

of

panels

the
were

created by twenty lac panelists, each of whom

must have invested a minimum of `11,000/-. The
payments, which were promised, stopped coming
and the panelists got restive and one of them,
who is also present before me today and wants

Page 3 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2016 19:09:06 :::

sjs

ABA-1083.2012

rt

to intervene in the matter, filed a report with

C
ou

Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, which was

eventually transferred to the EOW.

4.

The matter had been carried by some

Article
filing

32
a

of

ig
h

115 persons to the Supreme Court directly under

the

petition

Constitution
being

Writ

of

India

Petition

by
(C)

Supreme

No.383 of 2011. In the said writ petition the

Court

passed

an

order

appointing

ba
y

Hon'ble Shri Justice R.C. Lahoti, former Chief

Justice of India, as the mediator. It seems
that the Company had deposited US$ 10-million

om

in terms of the earlier orders passed by the

Supreme Court. Eventually, by the order dated
19-9-2012, the amount which was deposited suo
motu was allowed to be withdrawn because the
writ

petition

was

disposed

of

as

the

investigation by the EOW was going on.

5.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

parties

Page 4 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2016 19:09:06 :::

sjs

ABA-1083.2012

rt

also drew my attention to the orders passed by

C
ou

this Court in Writ Petition No.3611 of 2011.

Initially, the prayer in Writ Petition No.3611

of

2011,

which

was

filed

by

the

applicant

amongst others, was to direct the respondent

to

take

investigation
Company.

any

action

or

carry

ig
h

not

against

the

Subsequently,

panelists

pursuant

out

any

of

the

to

the

observations of the Court, it seems that the

All India Speak Asia Panelists' Association, of

ba
y

which the applicant is the Secretary, sought

relief of quashing of the FIR itself.

om

6.

The learned counsel for the applicant

stated that the applicant is in fact a victim.

He

has

also

suffered

loss

of

`64,000/-.

However, in order to avoid trouble, he took

lead in ensuring that the first informant was
paid `6,06,000/- by collecting it from various
sources, one of the sources being his own wife
Anju

Agarwal.

The

learned

counsel

for

the

Page 5 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2016 19:09:06 :::

sjs

ABA-1083.2012

points

out

that

various

blogs

on

rt

applicant

C
ou

which the investigating officer seeks to rely

have been posted on a website created by the
All India Speak Asia Panelists' Association.
These blogs invariably end with a slogan, Jai
Asia.

Yet,

the

applicant

repeatedly

ig
h

Speak

states, and is at pains to state that, he is

not associating himself with the Company. He is

the victim of the designs of the Company and

therefore he should not be subjected to any

ba
y

custodial interrogation.

7.

The learned Special PP is of course of

om

the other view and submits that the applicant

and others like him are in fact the persons
behind the whole business of the Company and
therefore their presence in custody is required
for

the

purpose

of

investigation.

Since

the

learned counsel for Company wants to file an

affidavit

explaining

as

to

how

the

Company

works and since the first informant, in-person,

Page 6 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2016 19:09:06 :::

sjs

ABA-1083.2012

rt

also wants to file an intervention application,

C
ou

list this application on 23-1-2013. Till then

the interim relief to continue.

8.

As

part

with

this

matter

for

the

ig
h

day, I faintly remember that the law as to

trial for offences, as laid down in Sections
218 and 219 of the Cr.P.C., is that for every

distinct offence there has to be a separate

charge and a separate trial in which maximum
offences

ba
y

three
during

an

year

of

the

can

be

same

kind

clubbed

committed

together

for

trial. Of late, tendency of the investigating

om

agencies to join all the people who have been

cheated into one investigation and file a bulky
charge-sheet is growing. This first delays the
filing

of

commencement

charge-sheet
of

trial,

and

secondly,

leave

aside

the
its

conclusion. The learned Special PP submits that

Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. permits joint trial
if several acts of cheating or misappropriation

Page 7 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2016 19:09:06 :::

are

ABA-1083.2012

committed

in

the

course

of

the

same

rt

sjs

C
ou

transaction. I am at a loss to understand as to

how cheating of the present first informant and

cheating of the other persons who also joined
as panelists can be said to be a part of the

ig
h

same transaction. Each act of persuading each

individual to part with his money would be a
separate

transaction.

Let

the

investigating

by

agency not give an impression to the common man

clubbing

all

these

items

of

cheating

ba
y

together and by over-loading the charge-sheet

to such an extent that the trial will never see
the light of the day, that the investigating

om

agency is also conniving with the fraudsters in

duping the common man.

9.

The learned Special PP states that he

would explain to me the reasons by submitting

some confidential details.

(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)

Page 8 of 8

::: Downloaded on - 10/07/2016 19:09:06 :::