Bail applications were denied due to serious allegations of online fraud involving substantial financial loss to the complainant.

Order

Order reserved on : 16/05/2025 Order pronounced on : 20/05/2025 These applications for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.14/2024, registered at Police Station Cyber Sriganganagar, District – Sriganganagar for offences under Sections 318(4), 308(6) & 61(2)(a) of the BNS and Section 66-D of the IT Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that allegations against the petitioners are of online fraud and cheating the complainant and of inducing them to deposit money in their accounts. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that accused- petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons have not induced the complainant to deposit money in their bank accounts.

Mr. Jitendra Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no amount has been deposited in the bank account of petitioner Ravi Guzar.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners further submitted that the accused-petitioners are in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. While submitted the factual report dated 13.05.2025 learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused- petitioners have committed a serious offence of cheating the complainant – Jasvindra Kaur and causing a loss of amount to Rs.1,05,69,960/- to him.

The complainant – Jasvindra Kaur has given a written report to the effect that she and her husband had separate and joint bank accounts in ICICI Banks. Three years ago they had sold their 32 Bigha land and the amount received after its sale was deposited in their bank accounts. Thereafter they purchased another land measuring 9 Bighas in 9TKW which too they sold and the amount received by them was deposited in their bank accounts. On 15.11.2024 at about 3:18 pm her husband received a call. The caller projected himself to be a CBI officer and told him that the amount has illegally been deposited in their account and a case has been registered against him in Delhi. The caller threatened him and told about the action being taken by them and asked him to deposit money in the bank accounts stated by him. Accordingly her husband deposited a total amount of Rs.1,05,69,960/- in the bank accounts of the accused persons.

Thus, they committed cheating with them.

Therefore, he prayed that looking to the gravity of the offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioners.

This Court finds that the accused petitioner Accused persons are using new techniques to cheat the people. Offences of online fraud are increasing day by day.

In the bank account of petitioner - Piyush Nayak an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been received the withdrawal of the same was made by Ajay. Kishan Singh Rajawat took the bank accounts on hire and handed over it to Mangi and Piyush and it was found that the money was withdrawn from the said Bank account and transferred further through accused Kishan. The amount of Rs.1,05,69,960/- which were debited from the account of the complainant was found to be deposited in the account of the firm of the accused-petitioner Piyush Nayak i.e. P.N. Trading Firm. Accused Ishan Baghel and Rohan Bhaveshkar have given the bank account of Piyush Nayak to their acquaintance Saif Ali for taking more commission. Accused Saif Ali transferred the amount of Rs.1,05,69,960/- from the account of Piyush Nayak and after transferring the same in his account and he gave commission of Rs.2,75,000/- to Ishan Baghel, Rohan Bhaveshkar and Piyush Nayak. As per the Bank record of suspicious bank account of Imran Sheikh and the helper Mohd. Tahir Ali to give such account on hire, involvement of both the accused persons in the present case