Mumbai Court Denies Bail to 5 in Rs 3.94 Crore SEBI Computer Theft Case
A sessions court in Mumbai on August 11, 2026, refused to grant anticipatory bail to a computer engineer and four other individuals booked over the alleged theft of computer parts worth Rs 3.94 crore from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
The case stems from a complaint filed by SEBI, which had previously awarded a contract to Inmac Computers Limited (ICL) for the supply of computers, maintenance services, and the provision of technical manpower for day-to-day operations. Under the agreement, ICL provided its employees and engineers to handle and operate the systems.
According to the complaint, SEBI had purchased computers equipped with 64 GB RAM from ICL. However, after the systems suddenly began operating slowly, an internal inquiry was conducted. The inquiry revealed that the computers contained only 32 GB RAM instead of the 64 GB RAM that had originally been supplied.
Subsequent inquiry and related correspondence allegedly established that ICL had originally supplied the computers with 64 GB RAM. However, engineers provided by ICL allegedly stole RAM modules from a total of 526 computers, resulting in an estimated financial loss of Rs 3.94 crore.
During the hearing, the court noted that various communications between SEBI and ICL were on record. ICL had admitted that its employees removed seven RAM modules from certain systems for repair purposes, but claimed that the modules were subsequently stolen while in their custody.
Rejecting the anticipatory bail applications, the court observed that ICL had failed to explain why it did not communicate transparently or take action against responsible employees. The court pointed out that ICL had changed its stance from time to time, creating doubt and justifying the need for a detailed probe.
"If so, what was the difficulty for it to fairly communicate with the informant and take action against the responsible employees is nowhere explained by it. On the contrary, it is found that it has changed its stand from time to time. That creates doubt. This fact itself is sufficient to infer that a thorough investigation is necessary for extracting the truth," the court stated in its order.
