The court highlighted that economic crimes in digital contexts require careful consideration in bail applications due to their serious nature and complexities.

CAV ORDER

This petition is preferred, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.101/2024 of CEN Crime Police Station, Davanagere, registered for the offence punishable under Section 419 and 420 of IPC and 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 . (for short ‘IT Act’).

2. The aforementioned case is registered on the first information lodged by one Smt.Shashikala D.G., wife of Gangadharappa, against an unknown person, referring to Mobile No.8768645483.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional SPP for the State and perused the material on record.

4. Brief facts of the case:- The first informant is a resident of Davangere. She holds an SBI Account No.64108482486, IFSC SBIN0040792, linked to her mobile No.8971956067 and connected to Phonepe and Google Pay. Her sister, father and aunt also have accounts in SBI, HDFC and Canara Bank with linked mobile numbers and UPI apps. On 31.05.2024, at about 4.00 p.m., she received a message from mobile No.8768645483 through Telegram application, inducing her to believe that by performing online “rating Tasks” through a website and Telegram group titled “Rank My APP 5091”, she would earn daily commission. She was initially credited with small bonus amounts to gain her confidence, and thereafter she was persuaded to transfer large sums of money on the pretext of commission earnings. Believing such representations, she transferred a total sum of Rs.37,45,000/- in different tranches between 03.06.2024 and 29.06.2024, out of which only Rs.16,538/- was credited back to her account, and the remaining Rs.37,28,946/- was misappropriated. It is alleged that the accused persons including the present petitioner arraigned as accused No.1, operated multiple bank accounts in their own names and in the names of their relatives for the purpose of such fraudulent transactions.

5. On the basis of the complaints lodged with the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP), FIR came to be registered.

6. In the chargesheet filed against three accused, petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. Split-up chargesheet is filed against accused Nos.2 and 3 as they are absconding. Petitioner who was arrested on 07.03.2025, preferred a bail petition before the Sessions Court in Crl. Misc No.358/2025. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the said petition vide order dated 02.05.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in the present case. He contended that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and his implication as accused No.1 is at the behest of personal motive. Further, entire case of the prosecution rests upon the alleged online investments made by the informant and her family members through Telegram application and website links, on the assurance of earning commission. They have made online transfers from their respective bank accounts, out of which a sum of Rs.16,538/- was admittedly returned as commission. Thus, the dispute essentially arises out of a failed investment scheme. Hence, merely because such investments did not yield the anticipated profit, the same cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution.

8. The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the material in the chargesheet does not specifically attribute the acts of inducement or misrepresentation. The bank statements of the petitioner do not disclose that any substantial amount was credited to his accounts and no material has been produced to demonstrate that the petitioner had direct communication with the complainant.

9. The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the entire investigation is completed and ch