Back
2025 Supreme(GUJ) 435
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 5374 of 2025 ==========================================================
ABDUL REHMAN ABDUL LATIF SHAIKH Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NADEEM B MANSURI(11332) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. KANVA ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 18/03/2025
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's prior involvement in similar fraudulent activities.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 419, 420, 120B - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Application for regular bail - Applicant arrested for alleged involvement in fraud using his bank account - Investigation complete, charge sheet filed - Allegations include willful participation and receipt of commission on fraudulent deposits - Court finds no grounds for bail due to serious nature of allegations and prior complaints against the applicant. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court must weigh the nature of the offence, the applicant's involvement, and the potential for further criminal activity. (Paras 4-6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested for allegedly allowing his bank account to be used for fraudulent transactions, receiving a commission for each deposit. The investigation revealed significant sums transferred to his account, with multiple complaints against him.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's prior involvement in similar offences.
Issues: The main issues included the applicant's level of involvement in the fraud and the implications of releasing him on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the serious nature of the allegations and the applicant's prior complaints warranted denial of bail, as releasing him could pose a risk of further criminal activity.
Result: Application dismissed.
ORDER :
(M. R. MENGDEY, J.)
1. The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the Applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No. 11191067240122 of 2024 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act 2000.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant and learned APP for the Respondent – State.
3. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that in the present offence investigation is over and charge sheet is filed. The Applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 24.04.2024 and since then the Applicant is in the custody. The only allegation levelled against the present Applicant is that the Bank Account of the present Applicant had been used for deposit of proceeds of fraud. The Applicant is working as a servant in a shop and he had no knowledge whatsoever that his Bank Account was being used for deposit of proceeds of fraud. The offences alleged against the present Applicant are triable by the court of Magistrate. He has further submitted that the Applicant has good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned APP has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail contending that the Applicant had actively participated in commission of the offence in question. The Applicant had willfully allowed his Bank Account to be used for the purpose of deposit of proceeds of fraud and an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- had come to the account of the present Applicant from the account of the first informant. The Applicant was also receiving 15% commission on each deposit. Learned APP has therefore submitted that looking to the nature of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant and the Application may be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the first informant had received a phone call from the other co-accused wherein he was asked to invest money as per the tip given by the caller to him and accordingly the first informant had transferred the money in the Bank Account intimated to him by the other co-accused. The said Bank Account belonged to the present Applicant and the amount of Rs.10,50,000/- was transferred from the Bank Account of the first informant to the Bank Account of the present Applicant. The record further indicates that the transaction wroth Rs. 1,57,00,000/- had taken place in the Bank Account of the present Applicant. These transactions are pertaining to the amount of proceeds of fraud. The record also indicates that another offence of similar nature has been registered against the present Applicant at Vadodara. Moreover as many as 13 complaints had been received against the Bank Account of the present Applicant across the country. The Applicant was receiving commission @ 15% upon each transaction which had taken place in his Bank Account.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, no ground is made out. The Application is dismissed.
