he Bombay high court granted interim pre arrest bail till February 16 to former world billiards champion Michael J Ferreira and two others in a case filed by a Pune investor on January 3 in connection with the QNet multi-level marketing cheating case. The firm would allegedly attract investors against promises of handsome returns but failed to deliver on its promises, prompting cases across the country.In May 2016, Justice Mrudula Bhatkar of the Bombay high court had rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Ferriera and four others in another QNet case lodged with the Oshiwara police in 2013.The Supreme Court, too, had rejected their special leave petitions in September last year against the high court order and asked them to surrender within a week.
Ferreira and his associates Malcolm N Desai and Srinivasa Rao Vanka, who are since in custody of Mumbai police’s economic offences wing, directly moved HC for anticipatory bail in connection with the Pune case.This was after a Pune magisterial court issued a warrant for transfer of their custody to the Pune police for the case lodged by Mahesh Mane.
On January 17, a division bench of the HC, while rejecting Ferreira and his aides’ petition for investigation by one agency , had directed them to move the single-judge bench dealing with anticipatory bail pleas. As such, their pleas related to the Pune case came up before Justice Bhatkar. They argued that they cannot be charged twice if the prosecution case in the Pune case is simi lar to the one registe red in Mumbai and, as such, a continuous offence. They also argued that there were no allegations against them and Mane’s case was that he paid money to QNet in August 2016, which was after their anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the HC and they were not continuing with their business in the name of QNet or its subsidiary Vihaan. The prosecution opposed the pleas, arguing that the accused were `very much involved’ in the net-marketing activities of QNet or Vihaan even after May last year.
Justice Bhatkar observed in her order, “This court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of these applicantsaccused…However, if this (Pune case) is to be treated as an independent case, then the investigating officer ought to bring on record the nexus between the applicantsaccused and the money invested by the complainant. Considering the submissions and facts of the case, interim pre-arrest bail is granted to the applicants till February 16 on certain terms and conditions.”