The court emphasized the necessity of denying bail in fraud cases with serious allegations to prevent interference with ongoing investigations.

ORDER

This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, seeking regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.2684/2023 of Crime Branch EOW, Ernakulam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406 , 419 & 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the It Act.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the accused Nos.1 to 4, in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the defacto complainant, joined together and called the defacto complainant from different phone numbers between 26.03.2022 to 09.09.2022 and told her that they were calling from a company called Snapdeal and she has received a prize money of Rs.1,32,50,000/-. By making the defacto complainant believe this, they made her transfer an amount of Rs.1,12,48,247/- from her account on different occasions to different bank accounts and misappropriated the same and thereby committed the above offence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the complainant had given three names with details, and the petitioner did not figure in the same. The remand report will suggest that all the persons named by the complainant were left out, and the petitioner was implicated along with others. It is also pointed out that the account details shown correspond to a period for which the defacto complainant made no complaint. It is argued that the petitioner is conducting a business of providing lodging and also as a service provider of OLA. It is also submitted that there are no antecedents against the petitioner and that he comes from a respected family, his father being an employee of the central government.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application had filed a report stating that the petitioner, with an intention to extract money fraudulently from the complainant, called her over the phone and made her belief that they were the dealers of Snapdeal company and they had won a lucky prize of Rs.1,32,55,000/- in the draw of snapdeal purchase which the complainant did and getting the details of the bank accounts, crores of rupees were looted and the various charges were taken for the disbursement of the prize money taken and neither the prize money was given nor the amounts taken returned and accordingly cheated by impersonating as a staff of snapdeal online sales platform. It is also argued that the investigation revealed that several persons are involved, and money is being transferred through various accounts as well as crypto currency. When the police, as part of the investigation, reached Ranchi, the petitioner and all other accused persons were staying in a rented house taken by the petitioner and in the search conducted in the said house and police seized 27 mobile phones, 37 sim cards, 38 bank cheque leaves, 85 ATM cards, 18 bank passbooks, laptop, pen drive and Indian currency Rs,1,39,250/- and Notebooks having the details of money distribution, details of bank account and linked mobile numbers. All the seized materials were used to loot money from the public by promising false lottery prize money. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a native of Ranchi, the investigation is only under progress, more evidence is to be collected for verifying the documents, and the chances of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and influencing the defacto complainant are more, and accordingly prayed for rejecting the bail application.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, I am not in a position to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the defacto complainant did not initially allege the name of the petitioner as it was only after a detailed investigation of the accused at Ranchi in the house taken on rent by him that several incriminating documents were collected. As rightly pointed out by the prosecution, the investigation is under progress,