IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Mhabeni Envy, D/o. Mhonyamo Enni & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) Nos. 2273, 2274 of 2021
Decided On : 29-12-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 420,120-B and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 437 and 439 - Indian Foreigner Act – Section 14 Transit - Quantity of dollars and gold - Complainant, serving as Head Mistress, had come in contact of some unknown person through Face Book, who was claiming himself to be resident of United Kingdom - After some time she received a call purporting to be a call from Airport Custom Department informing that one parcel sent to her from United Kingdom was lying with them and for release of which she had to deposit sum in account number communicated by them - At first instance complainant had refused by saying that she had not been expecting any such parcel - After couple of days, complainant again received a message from resident of United Kingdom that he had been coming to India, but he was detained by Custom Department at Mumbai Airport as he was possessing huge quantity of dollars and gold, and Custom Department was asking for money and he was not in a position to exchange the dollars and Gold into Rupees, he asked complainant to send money to account communicated by him - On last occasion of demand of money complainant asked for sum from her husband, who was not aware about this entire episode and thereupon her husband had inquired about the matter and when complainant asked resident of United Kingdom to refund her money, then said person switched off the phone - Whereupon complainant, approached the Police and FIR was lodged – Held, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that Envy is main accused as entire amount has been routed through fake bank accounts opened in Nagaland wherefrom she hails and thus she is not entitled for benefit being a lady for main and active role in commission of offence - Further that default bail to one co-accused does not entitle other co-accused arrested later on to get bail on the said ground - It has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate general that menace of duping innocent persons through cybercrime leading to irreparable and unbearable loss to victim is increasing day by day and, petitioners do not deserve any leniency - After going through the contents of the status report, considering cumulative effect of facts and circumstances and weighing personal interest of petitioner(s) with societal interest, and also impact of enlarging petitioners, at this stage, on the society, court do not find it fit to enlarge petitioner(s) on bail - Application(s) are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
These petitions have been filed seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 236 of 2019, dated 4.7.2019, under Sections 420, 120-B, 201 IPC and Section 14 of Indian Foreigner Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Una, District Una, H.P.
2. Status report stands filed, wherein manner, in which offence alleged to have been committed by petitioners alongwith co-accused Martin James John, causing the victim to transfer/transmit about Rs.27,00,000/- in the account supplied by the accused person during 11th January, 2019 to 7th March, 2019, has been narrated in detail.
3. In brief, as per status report, complainant, serving as Head Mistress, had come in contact of some unknown person through Face Book, who was claiming himself to be resident of United Kingdom. After some time she received a call purporting to be a call from Airport Custom Department informing that one parcel sent to her from United Kingdom was lying with them and for release of which she had to deposit Rs.93,000/- in the account number communicated by them. At first instance complainant had refused by saying that she had not been expecting any such parcel. But thereafter, she received a message from resident of United Kingdom, came in her contact through Face Book, disclosing that he had sent the parcel to her and had advised to receive it, whereupon complainant had deposited Rs.93,000/- in the account number communicated to her. Thereafter complainant received another call claiming it to be a call from Airport Custom Department to inform her that parcel contained number of dollars and huge Gold and, therefore, she had to pay Rs.1,75,000/- in addition to the amount deposited by her earlier. After couple of days, complainant again received a message from resident of United Kingdom that he had been coming to India, but he was detained by Custom Department at Mumbai Airport as he was possessing huge quantity of dollars and gold, and Custom Department was asking for money and he was not in a position to exchange the dollars and Gold into Rupees, therefore, he asked complainant to send money to the account communicated by him. Complainant transferred the amount to the account communicated by the accused person under compulsion as she thought that in case she would not send money, then the person would remain in detention and her money, already transferred by her, would not be recovered. On last occasion of demand of money complainant asked for Rs.2,00,000/- from her husband, who was not aware about this entire episode and thereupon her husband had inquired about the matter and when complainant asked resident of United Kingdom to refund her money, then the said person switched off the phone. Whereupon complainant, on 4.7.2019, approached the Police and FIR was lodged.
4. Complainant had reported that she had been receiving messages and calls from phone Nos.7303637393, 7065518321, 9711196438, 447511750525, 4474677112886, 447513152214 and 447448352202.
5. After registration of FIR, investigation was carried out and co-accused Martin James John was detained on the basis of phone call and location of shop and mobile phone through which he had been recharging his phone and he, on finding involved in commission of offence, was arrested on 20.2.2021, however he was enlarged on bail by the Court on 29.4.2021 by extending benefit of default bail as the Investigating Agency was not able to file challan within prescribed period.
6. During investigation account numbers to which amount was transferred were verified. These account numbers were of different branches of State Bank of India located in Nagaland. Complainant had transferred Rs.27,78,794/- to these accounts. On inquiry, all these accounts were found fake.
7. During investigation it was found that from SIM No. 70655-18321 complainant had 42 calls, for commission of offence and this SIM Card/number was used in phone sets having IEMI No. 865146020660770 and 355821093999270. These Mobile sets were used f
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.