High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed for grant of interim bail for period of 30 days in FIR dated 07.02.2021 registered at Police Station Civil Lines for offences under Section 420 IPC.
Brief Facts:
The complainant uploaded certain articles up for sale on OLX website. In response to her offer of sale, she got a call by one Raghuvendra Singh, who offered Rs.21,000/- for the said items, to which the complainant agreed and the transaction was to be done through online payment mode. A dummy transaction of Rs.21/- was done by Raghuvendra to verify the correctness of the transaction. Raghavendra Singh resisted to do a complete transaction through internet banking and insisted to make transactions in tranches on Paytm, Google Pay, HDFC and SBI. The complainant transferred a total of Rs.34,000/-. After which, the complainant was not able to contact the said Raghavendra Singh after calling multiple times and suspected that she had been defrauded by the said person. Based on this information, FIR dated 07.02.2021 registered at Police Station Civil Lines for offences under Section 420 IPC. Then Sajid was interrogated, he stated that he is a taxi driver and had made friends with Waris, who allegedly enticed him to open a fake bank account with a sum Rs.2,000/- if he owned a bank account and operated a phone number under a fictitious name and address. Further joint enquiries by the Cyber Cell and the Police, got them in contact with the Manvendra Singh who stated that he was preparing for a government job and had made friends with Waris who allegedly lured him to commit online frauds and told him that online bank accounts with fictitious addresses had already been opened and the stage was set to dupe people without any detection.
Trial Court’s Decision:
The bail applications of the petitioner were dismissed by the learned Trial Court stating that the petitioner is accused of embezzlement and used clever devices to cheat many innocent persons on the internet, the transactions of which were still being investigated by the Cyber Cell/IT Department and this was the first time that they were caught.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that the chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet both stands filed. He contends that the nature of evidence against the petitioner is documentary in nature which would not require the custodial presence of the petitioner. Being incarcerated as undertrial would deprive him of being gainfully employed. It was submitted that there is no substantial evidence against the petitioner apart from the disclosure statements of the other co-accused.
Respondent’s Contention:
The learned State counsel submitted that that the acts of which the petitioner has been charged with was executed in a very organized way. He submits that the petitioner created bank accounts giving false details in order to not get caught and purchased SIM cards in fictitious names which were used to defraud and cheat gullible people who sold and purchased goods from the internet. He further submitted that that SIM cards were obtained by petitioner by giving fake IDs and further the charge of forgery was also made out against them.
He submitted that the Call Detail Records shows that the petitioner was in touch with the other co-accused frequently and that there were many bank transactions amongst them that were observed during investigation. He fairly conceded that the petitioner did not have any criminal antecedents but contended that the petitioner had not just defrauded the present complainant but many other persons and the same was being investigated into by the authorities.
HC’s observations and Held:
After evaluating various submissions made by both the parties HC stated that “This Court is aware that this kind of online cheating and fraud has become rampant in most parts of the country. Gravity or seriousness of the allegations alone cannot be a ground to deny bail to the accused if the facts and circumstances of the case entitles the accused to be released on bail. The investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court. The evidence are primarily documentary in nature. The petitioner is in no position to tamper with evidence which is in custody of the Police and takings into account his social status, the chances of the petitioner to threaten the witnesses are remote.”
HC allowed the bail application.
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad
Case Title: Moveen v. State
Case Details: BAIL APPLN. 2588/2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
