The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a sourcing consultant accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case arising from allegations that a company failed to provide placements to candidates after training. The Court observed that the applicant, who was merely a sourcing consultant, could not be held responsible for the company's failure to place candidates who did not meet the prescribed performance standards.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with an FIR registered for offences under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) and 112(2), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The applicant was working as a sourcing consultant for Flynaut OPC and Flynaut SaaS Pvt. Ltd. Flynaut OPC provided specialised IT training to candidates who voluntarily enrolled by paying a fixed fee. They were informed that, after completing the training, an agency would recruit eligible candidates in its sister concern, Flynaut SaaS Pvt. Ltd. Candidates employed there were also paid a monthly stipend of Rs. 15,000 for three months to acquire further skills.

The prosecution case arose primarily from complaints by candidates who could not secure placements in the sister company. More than 177 candidates were allegedly aggrieved by the company's failure to provide placements, leading to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust against the company and its directors.

The Court noted that the material collected during the investigation indicated that more than 400 candidates had voluntarily enrolled in the training programme, and over 200 eligible candidates had subsequently been placed in the sister company. These candidates had also received the assured stipend during their further training.

The Bench further observed that the candidates had been informed of the terms governing their enrolment and placement. The offer letter, voluntarily accepted by them, clarified that completion of the internship did not guarantee continued employment and that full-time appointment, initially on probation for nine months, would depend on meeting internal performance standards and onboarding criteria.

The Court observed that the allegation against the applicant essentially concerned the company's failure to offer placements to candidates who did not meet the requisite performance standards. Considering the applicant's specific role, the Court held that he cannot be held responsible.

“… the Applicant, who was working merely as a sourcing consultant, cannot be held responsible for the failure of the company to provide placement to candidates who did not meet the requisite performance standards.”

The Court held that taking into consideration the material collected during the investigation and the overall circumstances, the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail. It also granted him the benefit of parity, noting that the company's founder and director had already been granted bail.

Accordingly, the bail application was allowed.

Case Title: Laxman Ranglal Chavan v. State of Maharashtra [Bail Application No. 4095 of 2026]