The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the accusation, supporting evidence, severity of punishment, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the petitioner's criminal proclivity.

JUDGMENT :

S. K. SAHOO, J.

1. A twenty one year young boy has knocked at the portals of this Court for bail. He is involved in cybercrime. The manner in which the crime has been committed shows the devilish master mindedness, cool thinking, tricks adopted, organised effort and timely execution of plan of the offenders. The intelligence and advanced type of knowledge on cyber seems to have been utilised in a wrong way. Sitting somewhere far from the victim and without having any direct physical access to her, the cybercriminal has caused unimaginable harm to her with touches of his fingers on the computer and stolen more than what an ordinary criminal could have done with gun. The victim of the organised crime appears to be an innocent lady fell into the trap of evil design. With the temptation of getting foreign gifts, she acted like a brainless toy in the hands of the criminals till she realised one day that she had been deceived on a mistaken impression.

2. The law was set into motion with the presentation of a first information report by Sukanti Mohanty at Cyber Crime Police Station of C.I.D., C.B., Cuttack on the accusation that she had become a victim of organized cybercrime and had paid a sum of Rs.17,03,390/- to different persons through their bank accounts which were provided to her through e-mail/sms/whatsapp. She alleged against one person identifying himself as Frank Young on facebook had sent her a friend’s request which she accepted. The accused informed the informant that he had sent her some gifts which were held up in Delhi from where she should collect the gifts. The informant was asked through a number of calls and e-mails for money on various pretexts i.e. remittance, foreign exchange, transfer etc. The phone calls and sms were received from different numbers and the people who identified themselves as Frank, Marc, security personnel, R.B.I. officials and Airport officials etc. advised and convinced the informant to deposit money in different bank accounts provided by them. The money was paid in four different bank accounts of four different persons by the informant totalling to Rs.17,03,390/-.

3. On such first information report, C.I.D.C.B. Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.12 dated 26.08.2016 was registered under sections 419/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 66-C/66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. During course of investigation, the informant and other witnesses were examined. The documents relating to deposit of money, accounts statement of the informant’s bank account as well as some other relevant documents were seized. Requisitions under section 91 of Cr.P.C. were sent to the concerned banks to provide A/c opening forms details along with up to date account statement and other necessary information for identification of the account holders. Immediate correspondence were also made with concerned mobile service providers to ascertain the subscriber information as well as call details to ascertain the identity and location of the cell phone numbers which were used in making contact with the informant. While conducting investigating at New Delhi, it was ascertained that large sum of money was deposited in the bank accounts of fraudsters and the same was immediately being transferred to many other bank accounts in smaller amounts by internet banking and soon after that the smaller amounts were withdrawn immediately through ATMs in no time leaving very little or no balance in the beneficiary accounts. The concerned branch managers were requested to debit freeze the beneficiary accounts. On 08.10.2016, the Inspector of Cyber Crime, Goa intimated the investigating officer by e-mail that two Nigerian nationals i.e. the petitioner and another have been arrested on 03.10.2016 by Goa police and during interrogation, it was ascertained that they are involved in a crime in Orissa by defrauding the informant by using two mobile numbers. During verification of the mobile numbers and call records receiv