BENGALURU: A city court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Arokia Dass (50), who allegedly impersonated an Infosys employee called ‘Madhuranath’ to build a false narrative involving development of an IT park on lands that were never in possession of the accused.
According to a complaint filed by Badal Jain with Central Crime Branch police, the accused persons, including Dass, impersonated high-ranking officials and fabricated fictitious identities, and induced the complainant’s father, Suresh Jain, to part with Rs 231.34 crore under various pretexts.
These include procurement of real estate, clearance of litigation, and investment in property development projects across Bengaluru, Goa and other locations. The complaint revealed a deeply woven conspiracy involving impersonation, criminal breach of trust, cheating and coordinated financial fraud of colossal magnitude, purportedly committed by Syed Faratullah aka Javed and several of his associates.
Judge Shirin Javeed Ansari, 69th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, noted that the materials placed before court, coupled with the FIR and detailed complaint, reveal a prima facie role attributed to the petitioner, who falsely posed as an employee of a reputed IT company to induce trust and legitimacy in the minds of the complainant and his father.
Giving reasons for rejecting plea, the court said the petitioner’s name is not casually dragged in without attribution of a role. Rather, impersonation of a trusted corporate identity, and criminal design involving crores of rupees, brings the petitioner’s alleged conduct within the ambit of Section 3(5) read with other penal provisions of BNS 2023, the court added.
Pointing out that the magnitude of Rs 231.34 crore cannot be overlooked, the court said the requirement of custodial interrogation outweigh any factors that could justify the grant of anticipatory bail to Arokia Dass, a resident of Viveknagar in the city.
The court further stated that the petitioner’s contention that he is not the main accused and is only remotely connected, cannot be accepted in view of the allegation that his impersonation induced Jain to part with money for a fictitious IT park project. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is warranted to unearth the full extent of the conspiracy and trace the movement of assets, the court added.
