Wan Chenghua vs State of U. T. Chandigarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Wan Chenghua – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.T. Chandigarh – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 23610 of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Harish Bhatti, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Deepinder Brar, Addl. PP. UT, Chandigarh.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509, 120-B - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 66-D and 67 - Foreigners Act, 1946 - Bail sought for under Section 439 CrPC by petitioner accused of duping individuals through a fraudulent loan application, threatening victims post-app installation, and transferring extorted funds abroad - Petitioner claims no criminal history; opposing party cites flight risk concerns. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9)

(B) Bail - Granting bail contingent on ensuring the accused’s presence for trial and balancing societal interest - Considerations include the accused's lack of local sureties and alternatives like cash deposits or fixed deposits as collateral - Relevant precedents examined detailing the option for cash security instead of sureties. (Paras 12, 24, 26)

(C) Judicial discretion - It is acknowledged that the Court possesses significant flexibility in tailoring bail conditions to ensure the accused's safety and community security. (Paras 30, 31)

Findings of Court:
Petitioner can be released on bail subject to stringent conditions, including personal and surety bonds or fixed deposit. (Paras 27, 28)

Issues: Whether the conditions imposed for bail are just and reasonable, considering the nature of the crime and the accused's ties to the community.

Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the nature of the accusations with the need for individual liberty, stating that pre-trial incarceration should not be punitive without just cause while emphasizing the imperative of alternative security measures.

Result: Petition allowed under stipulated terms.

Table of Content
1. accusation of cybercrime related to loan application scam. (Para 1 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. analysis of risks associated with the accused. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
4. conditions regarding bail and surety. (Para 12 , 14 , 18)
5. bail granted with specific conditions and orders. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
33	03.09.2022	Cyber Crime Chandigarh	384, 420, 468, 471, 509, 120-B IPC (Sections 66-D, 67 of Information technology Act, 2000 and section 14 of The Foreigners Act, 1946 added later on)

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of involvement in duping and threatening the gullible people through the Hugo Loan app and transferring money to overseas accounts, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The Union Territory of Chandigarh opposes bail and submits that the petitioner is a flight risk.

5. The complainant informed the police that he had received an SMS on his mobile number containing a URL link and as soon as he clicked on it, Hugo's loan application was installed. The application sought permission to access all his contacts and gallery on the cell and the complainant granted the permission, thinking it was routine for such mobile based Apps to do so during installations. Subsequently, he checked his eligibility for a loan on the Hugo loan app and filled in all his details. The application showed that he was eligible for Rs.3500/-loan. However, the complainant did not apply for a loan. Later, he received threatening calls and SMS on WhatsApp through mobile numbers +37125218379, +6283146262636, and +919910429137, demanding money and intimidating him that they have downloaded photos from his phone's gallery, and started sending to him, his and his family members morphed photos, and proclaimed that they would be sending these obscene pictures to all his contacts. Feeling scared, he transferred Rs.2045/- on 24.08.2022 and Rs. 3500/- on 30.08.2022, but the accused continued to threaten him and demanded more money.

6. The modus operendi was that cyber-thugs were running mobile phone based scam through an app named 'Hugo Loan.' The modus operandi was sending messages to entice needy people to take outeasy quick loans. Once downloaded, the App required filling in personal details to check their eligibility for such loans. While downloading the application, the app also sought access to the contacts and gallery, which the people granted. The application would then show eligibility for a meager loan amount. Many targets would not pursue owing to the low amount. However, in the meantime, the application downloaded all the contacts and photographs from their phone gallery to their server. The cyber-thugs then made repeated calls to extort money threatening the targets that they would leak out morphed or intimate pictures of them and their family. Due to fear and insignificant monetary loss viz-a-viz reputation, the victims obliged and several of them did not contemplate taking legal action. Cumulatively, the thugs ended up with a sizeable chunk.

7. In this regard, the police conducted a detailed enquiry and arrested the present petitioner and a large number of accused. It would be appropriate to refer to the status report that was filed in one of the bail petitions, by a co-accused. The relevant parts read as under: -

"During the course of investigation, CAF and CDR of alleged mobile number 7015153485 obtained, from the scrutiny of CDR, on 05.09.2022 the accused namely (1) Gyandeep 5/044 Sukhbir, VillBokha, PS Khal, Distt. Rewari