Mumbai: A sessions court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 36-year-old Goregaon resident, Pratik Choudhary, booked in connection with a case registered against 4B Network and its directors for alleged Rs 58.29 crore fraud.

The complaint alleged that Choudhary and one Rahul Yadav were directors of 4B Network and that on their representation, Allcheckdeals India invested Rs 288 crore into their firm in three tranches. However, the firm claimed that the funds were siphoned for other companies, it added.

Choudhary’s lawyer, Neha Achaliya, contended that the case of informant was of investment of Rs 288 crore but the FIR was restricted to alleged siphoning of Rs 58.29 crore. Besides, as the dispute arose in January 2023, Allcheckdeal had approached the Delhi High Court for arbitration and the complaint was lodged in November 2024.

It was further contended that Choudhary had nothing to do with the siphoning of the funds. It was argued that he was director of 4B Network from November 2020 to March 2021.

“During the period of directorship of the applicant, only one tranche of investment of Rs 9 crore was released with an agreement dated February 11, 2021. The remaining investment was from the period after his resignation,” said his plea.

Objecting to the plea, the prosecution claimed that he was the director of 4B Network and 4B Realtech and Switchme companies through which the money was allegedly diverted. He even received consultant fees of Rs 1 crore and hence he had a role in siphoning the funds, the prosecution added.

After hearing both the sides, the court observed, “It appears that only one tranche of Rs 9 crore was transferred when the applicant was director in the said company. However, there is other material on record showing that the applicant actively participated and played a role in 4B Network in diverting funds out of Rs 288 crore in other companies.”

The court noted that Choudhary played an “active role” in diversion of funds as revealed from the minutes of the meetings and WhatsApp chat even after his resignation as director from 4B Network. “Thus, considering the role of the applicant and the huge amount allegedly siphoned by 4B Network, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail,” ruled the court.