Stayzilla CEO Yogendra Vasupal’s bail plea rejected

Special court grants his one-day custody to the Central Crime Branch police.

March 23, 2017 04:15 pm | Updated November 29, 2021 01:30 pm IST - Chennai

Stayzilla CEO Yogendra Vasupal. File photo

Stayzilla CEO Yogendra Vasupal. File photo

A special court for CCB-CBCID cases in Chennai on Thursday dismissed a bail application moved by Yogendra Vasupal, co-founder of online home stay aggregator Stayzilla. Mr. Vasupal was arrested by the Central Crime Branch (CCB) on March 14, 2017,  on charges of cheating and criminal intimidation.

Dismissing his bail plea, Special Metropolitan Magistrate M.M. Kabir granted one day custody of the entrepreneur to the CCB. "The CCB is granted custody of the accused from 3 p. m. today till 3 p.m. Friday," the Judge said.

On Wednesday, during the arguments in his bail plea Mr. Vasupal contended that the criminal charges foisted against him are part of pressure tactics to settle a civil dispute.

Criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based on a complaint from C.S. Aditya of Jigsaw Advertising and Solutions Private Limited, alleging that Stayzilla had failed to make payments for services rendered since February 2016 and has defrauded him of ₹1.69 crore. A case was registered by the CCB against Mr. 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.

Moving the bail application, Mr. Kumar said, “There is no written contract for the services rendered. It was all an understanding between the parties." Pointing out that the whole dispute was of a civil nature, the senior counsel contended that the least police should have done was to have enquired the petitioner about what the dispute was actually about and that they cannot unilaterally believe what the complainant has said and arrest the petitioner.

Opposing the application, Additional Public Prosecutor S. Manual Arasu said, “Prima facie this is a clear case of cheating. The other accused is absconding and is yet to be arrested and it is too early to allow the 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.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.