The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a sourcing consultant accused in a case involving allegations that a company collected fees from candidates for IT training but failed to provide placements to some of them. Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that a consultant who merely sourced candidates cannot automatically be held responsible for the company's failure to offer employment to candidates who did not meet the prescribed performance standards.
Background
The prosecution alleged that more than 177 candidates were aggrieved after they failed to secure placements with Flynaut SaaS Pvt. Ltd. They had enrolled for specialised IT training with Flynaut OPC after paying a fixed fee, with the understanding that eligible candidates could subsequently be placed in its sister company.
The applicant was working as a sourcing consultant for the companies. The prosecution registered a case under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4) and 112(2), read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Court noted that more than 400 candidates had enrolled in the programme, while over 200 eligible candidates had received placements. They were also paid a monthly stipend of ₹15,000 for three months during further training.
The offer letter made it clear that completing the internship did not guarantee permanent employment. Full-time appointment depended on performance standards and fulfilment of the company's eligibility requirements.
Justice Jadhav observed:
"Thus, the allegation against the Applicant is essentially that the company failed to offer placement to certain candidates on account of their performance and failure to meet the prescribed eligibility criteria. In view of the material prima facie available on record, 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 also considered that the company's founder and director had already been granted bail. It held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of parity.
Allowing the bail application, the High Court directed the applicant's release on a personal recognisance bond of ₹25,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount. He was also directed to report to the investigating officer once every month and comply with the other conditions imposed by the Court.
The Court clarified:
"It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order."
The bail application was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Laxman Ranglal Chavan v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Bail Application No. 4095 of 2026
Judge: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Decision Date: 2 November 2026
