The Supreme Court has upheld the interim anticipatory bail granted to the accused in a “grey routing” case, which involves the illegal rerouting of international calls and disguising them as local Indian calls using special internet-based phone lines on Jio’s enterprise networks.

Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale finalized the protection after noting that the accused had cooperated with the Investigating Officer (IO) by appearing before him and giving statements, a fact that was not disputed by the State of Maharashtra (Respondent).

Case Background:

An investigation by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) revealed that between April to July 2024, international calls were being masked as local calls on mobile phones, later tracing them to illegal SIP trunk lines operating from within India.

It was further alleged that M/s. Humanity Path Private Limited used its legal lines operating from other countries to route calls to M/s. Web Werks in Mumbai and to M/s. Srivansh Consulting Private Limited, which handled the technical setup for these calls using 1000 phone numbers and was found to be running the required infrastructure for this set up. It was also alleged that M/s Web Werks provided the internet and hosting services for this setup.

During the investigation, equipment such as routers and servers were seized from the premises of one of the appellants, and the alleged activities were said to have caused a financial loss of more than Rs. 5 crores to the exchequer.

The accused are charged with offences under Sections 318 (4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3, 6 and 4 of Indian Wireless Act, 1933 and Sections 20, 20A, 21 and 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

Earlier both the trial court and the Bombay High Court had rejected their bail applications before the Supreme Court stepped in.

Court's Ruling:

The bench rejected the state's plea for custodial interrogation to probe a larger conspiracy, noting no new evidence emerged post-statements. The order states: “However, the learned counsel for the respondent-State would vehemently contend that in order to unearth the larger conspiracy and the misuse of internet facility, the custodial interrogation of the appellants was warranted. However, we are not inclined to accept the said submission for the simple reason that pursuant to the interim protection granted by this Court, the appellants have appeared before the IO, cooperated with the investigation and have tendered their statement. Nothing further has been placed on record to demonstrate that any fresh material has been elicited or unearthed after such recording of the statement of appellants which are serious enough to deny the bail. ”

Case Title: PINKY RANI ETC v STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SLP(CRL.) NOS.16470-16471 OF 2025. ]