The Special Court for Central Crime Branch – CBCID, Egmore at Allikulam has dismissed the bail petition of Yogendra Vasupal, co-founder of homestay startup, Stayzilla, who was arrested on a charge of cheating Rs 1.7 crore.
The Special Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB-CBCID cases M.M. Kabir has also granted one-day police custody for the accused and directed the CCB police to produce the accused before the court on Friday at 3 pm.
Sachit Singhi, one of Stazilla’s three founders, wrote an e-mail to its investors on the evening of March 14 that Vasupal was missing and last seen in a police station. After this, around 300 entrepreneurs, including former Infosys board member Mohandas Pai, Paytm founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma and Ola Cabs co-founder Bhavish Aggarwal, in a letter to the Union home minister, sought justice for Vasupal. They expressed concern at the manner of arrest and alleged harassment by officials.
Start-ups had, they said, become a growth engine of innovation for India and the Prime Minister’s ‘Startup India’ call had given a boost to the youth and their entrepreneurial dream. “The company is still active. Criminalising a person who was solely and earnestly working towards these closures has blocked the path for everyone else, for selfish reasons. It is not only hurtful to Stayzilla’s existing partners but demoralising for entrepreneurs,” went a blog on behalf of Vasupal.
Based on a complaint from C. S. Aditya of Jigsaw the CCB personnel registered a case against Vasupal and his partner Sarjit Singhi for offences under Sections 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (Cheating), 506 (i) (Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC.
It was alleged by the advertisement firm that Stayzilla had defrauded it to the tune of about Rs. 1.68 crore for services it had rendered since last year.
Vasupal, who was arrested by the CCB on March 14 for alleged cheating and criminal intimidation, had yesterday averred during arguments that the charges against him were “foisted”. He had claimed that it was part of “pressure tactics” to settle a “civil dispute.”
The counsel for Vasupal contended that the dispute was of a civil nature and police should not have gone solely on the basis of the complainant’s version and arrest his client.
The counsel for Vasupal contended that the dispute was of a civil nature and police should not have gone solely on the basis of the complainants version and arrest his client. Police should have at least enquired with the petitioner about the dispute, he submitted.
Additional Public Prosecutor S Manual Arasu, however, opposed the bail plea and moved an application seeking two days custody of the accused. He maintained that it was prima facie a case of cheating. He said the other accused was absconding and it was “premature” to allow the bail application considering the gravity of the offence.
The Prosecutor then moved an application on behalf of the CCB seeking two days custody of the accused.
