Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 16006
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY, J
MUSTUFA @ RAJU PLASTIC YUNUS NAVIWALA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO. 17332 of 2024
The court exercised discretion to grant bail based on the applicant's role being similar to co-accused already granted bail, considering the nature of allegations and conditions imposed.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - Section 483 - Application for regular bail in connection with cyber crime - Investigation completed and charge-sheet filed - Role of applicant similar to co-accused granted bail - Serious nature of allegations considered - Conditions imposed for bail. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 10)
(B) Bail - Factors for consideration - Court considers prima facie case, likelihood of fleeing, and tampering with evidence - Discretion exercised in favor of applicant based on circumstances. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is seeking bail in a cyber crime case involving allegations of receiving and converting fraudulent proceeds into cryptocurrency. The investigation is complete, and the charge-sheet has been filed. (Paras 2, 3, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's role was similar to that of co-accused who were granted bail, and the discretion to grant bail was exercised favorably. (Paras 8, 10)
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the allegations against the applicant and whether the applicant posed a flight risk or a risk of tampering with evidence. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's role was not significantly different from that of co-accused granted bail, and the discretion to grant bail was justified based on the circumstances of the case. (Paras 8, 10)
Result: Application allowed; applicant released on bail subject to conditions.
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State.
2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for regular bail in connection with F.I.R. No.11191067240045 of 2024 registered with Cyber Crime Police Station, District Ahmedabad.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Virat G. Popat appearing for the applicant has submitted that the investigation of the present offence is over and the Charge-sheet has been filed. The role attributed to the present applicant is similar to the role attributed to the other co-accused who have been considered for grant of bail by this Court. He has submitted that the only role attributed to the present applicant for commission of offence is to the effect that the applicant had received money which was alleged to be the proceeds of fraud and thereafter, had sent the said money through the Angadiya by converting the same in Bitcoin and had received commission on it @ 1.5% over the said amount. Except this, no other overt act has been attributed to the present applicant for commission of offence. He has, therefore, submitted that the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions.
4. The learned APP appearing for the respondent State has vehemently submitted that the present applicant has played an active role in commission of offence as the applicant had received an amount Rs.17,55,000/- through the Angadiya from the absconder co- accused Lalu and thereafter, had further sent the said amount through Angadiya and had converted the said amount in cryptocurrency and had deposited the said cryptocurrency in the wallet of the co- accused Moin Igariya and the said co-accused Moin Igariya had thereafter transferred the cryptocurrency to Chinese national. He has submitted that the accounts which are involved in the present offence are largely used for commission of fraud of such nature and several other complaints have been received qua the said bank accounts across the country. Learned APP has, therefore, submitted that the offences which have been charged, are serious in nature and looking to the facts as well as the allegations levelled against the applicant, no discretion is required to be exercised.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Arjun Joshi appearing for the original complainant has submitted that the Delhi High Court in the matter with similar facts had declined to exercise discretion and rejected the bail to the accused persons. He has, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present application.
6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and Charge-sheet has already been filed.
7. The present applicant has been arrested in connection of the present offence on 22.04.2024. The role attributed to the present applicant is to the effect that the co-accused Ravi Sausheta had given his bank account with fake bank to Yogiraj Jadeja who intended the said given bank account to the absconder co-accused Lalu and Lalu had handed over the said bank account to the present applicant and the applicant had handed over the said bank account to the other co-accused Moin Igariya. The total sum of Rs.18 Lakhs has been received in two different transactions in the said bank account of Ravi Sausheta. The said amount is withdrawn by the Ravi Sausheta along with Yogiraj Jadeja and after deducting the commission of both these co-accused persons, the sum of Rs.17,55,000/- had been sent by them through Angadiya to the absconder co- accused Lalu. Lalu thereafter sent this amount through Angadiya to the present applicant who thereafter had deducted the sum of Rs.27,000/- towards commission @ 1.5% and had sent the remaining amount through the Angadiya from Surat. The amount of Rs.17,28,000/- had thereafter been converted by the present applicant from cash into cryptocurrency and had deposited the said cryptocurrency in the acc
