Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sheikh Mushabbar Abbas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 July, 2020
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C. Nos.16968, 18395 and 18963 of 2020
M.Cr.C. No.16968 of 2020
Shaikh Mushabbar Abbas Vs. State of M. P.
M.Cr.C. No.18395 of 2020
Mohammad Shahbuddin Vs. State of M.P.
&
M.Cr.C. No.18963 of 2020
Mohammad Ijhar Ull Vs. State of M.P.
Indore, Dated:- 03/07/2020
Shri Vikas Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner--
Shaikh Mushabbar Abbas S/o Shri Shaikh Zakir Ahamed
(M.Cr.C. No.16968/2020).
Shri Akash Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner
--Mohammad Shahbuddin S/o Mohammad Jamaluddin
(M.Cr.C. No.18395/2020) and for petitioner--Mohammad
Ijhar Ull S/o Shri Abrar Ull Nabi (M.Cr.C.
No.18963/2020).
Shri Gagan Bajad, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
1. All these three miscellaneous criminal petitions are related to the Crime No.285/2019 registered under Sections 420, 120-B, 201, IPC and 66-D I.T. Act at Police Station--Aerodrome, Indore, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
2. All these petitions are the first bail applications of petitioners--Shaikh Mushabbar Abbas, Mohammad Shahbuddin and Mohammad Ijhar Ull. As per declaration 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. Nos.16968, 18395 and 18963 of 2020 made by them, none of them has filed any other application before this Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. This is a case of online fraud, wherein after getting bank details by deceiving the holder of the account, the money was drained out.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that after getting information that an application of Ishwarlal Dagdi to release the amount of his deceased son Amit Dagdi is pending under consideration before the bank, one of the co-accused contacted him on 23.11.2018 on his Mobile No.94253-48005 by Mobile No.62067-76345. The caller introduced himself as an employee of Standard Charter Bank, Rakesh Mishra and assured that the amount laying in the account of his deceased son Amit will be transferred to his other account as sought by him and for that purpose he need not to visit the Bank, but has to supply the information asked by him. Ishwarlal revealed this fact before his other son Jayvant. On 24.11.2018, when Rakesh Mishra called again, Ishwarlal shared details of his saving account of I.D.B.I. Bank and its credit card, but Rakesh informed him that his credit card is freezed and, therefore, money is not getting transfer in his account. Thereafter, Ishwarlal provided him particulars of his another account No.882020110000558 of Bank of India. After sometime, Rakesh again called and instructed him that after sometime he will get a link, which he has to share him. After sometime, he received a link and sent it to the Mobile 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. Nos.16968, 18395 and 18963 of 2020 No.92447-70000 provided by Rakesh Mishra. Rakesh again called him and asked him to forward a message, which he will receive shortly. He again followed the instruction. He received OTP twice and forwarded it to the same number i.e., 92447-70000. Immediately after forwarding OTP to the caller Rakesh Mishra, Ishwarlal started receiving messages of withdrawal of money from his account. Finding that he has been deceived, his son Jayvant filed a complaint with the police. Total Rs.4,38,000/- were transferred from the account of father of the complainant.
5. On investigation, it was found that the money was transferred to the account No.20204430239 of Shabreen Ara Qureshi maintained with State Bank of India, N. R. Mohalla, Mysore No.4 Rajendranagar, Main road, N. R. Mohalla, Mysore, 570007, Karnataka. Account Nos.875108024216 and 5151108003472 of Syed Arif and his daughter Saniya Banu maintained with Canara Bank, Tilak Nagar, 875, Mysore and Canara Bank, N. R. Mohalla 5151, Mysore, Karnataka respectively. They were taken into custody and interrogated by the police. Sayed Arif revealed that his relative Sayyad Inam-ur Rahman had taken account details of his own and his daughter, making a proposal that he will give them Rs.5,000/- for each account. Saiyyad Inam-ur Rahman revealed that his relative Ahmad Khan offered and instigated him to provide such detail with a proposal that he will give him 5% of the 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. Nos.16968, 18395 and 18963 of 2020 amount to be transferred in the account provided by him. Ahmad Khan revealed that he handed over this information to Shaikh Mushabbar Abbas, accepting his proposal of 10% commission of the amount to be transferred in the accounts of which information will be provided by him. Shaikh Mushabbar Abbas revealed that one Ijharul @ Ijhar Nabi had introduced one Shahabuddin, who told him about the online fraud and allured him by offering 10% commission of the amount earned by such a fraud. Ijharul @ Ijhar Nabi also revealed the same facts. In this way, the police reached to the mastermind Mohammad Shahabuddin, who also confirmed the string of the persons involved in the crime.
6. Photocopies or the passbook of Sayed Arif and his daughter Saniya Banu were recovered from possession of the aforesaid accused persons. Information regarding transfers of Rs.4.38 lakhs from the account of the father of the complainant to the account of Sayed Arif and Saniya Banu were also collected. Several SMS showing sharing of OTP etc. to the number provided by the caller and the call details record (CDR) connecting the links in the chain of circumstances have also been collected during investigation.
7. The bail is pleaded on the grounds that the petitioners are innocent. They have provided their details of saving accounts in the greed of few pennies. They have done nothing. Neither they called the complainant nor asked for 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. Nos.16968, 18395 and 18963 of 2020 him to provide any information. They are impleaded only on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused persons recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which is an inadmissible piece of evidence. No other evidence is available on record to connect them with the crime. They are poor labourers and were earning their livelihood by doing petty works. They have no criminal antecedent. Trial would take considerable time. All the petitioners are ready to follow the instructions issued and to obey the conditions imposed by this Court.
8. The bail is objected by the learned Panel Lawyer on the grounds that all the accused persons are resident of different cities of other States like Mysore, and Bangalore of Karnataka and also different cities of Jharkhand. They have no connection of any type with the complainant. There was no reason for transfer of such a huge amount from the account of the complainant to their account. Though, the charge-sheet has been filed adhering the limitation prescribed by the law, but the offence is very complicated one and needs more intensive investigation, therefore, the same has been kept open even after filing of the charge-sheet. Online frauds are increasing day by day. The criminals indulged in such crime are more intelligent, qualified and shrewd persons. They commit such offences more skillfully. Most of the records remains available at the finger tip and can get away or manipulated, omitted, deleted or interpolated very easily in a quick in case the 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. Nos.16968, 18395 and 18963 of 2020 culprits gets the opportunity to do so. The petitioners could be arrested with great difficulty and after releasing them on bail, it would be very difficult to trace them again, as they belongs to other States. The possibility of their absconding cannot be ruled out, which will bring the trial at halt, therefore, they be not granted bail.
9. I have heard the parties at length and have perused the case-diary.
10. On due consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the evidence available on record and the other facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case to allow bail to the petitioners, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, all the three petitions are dismissed.
(Virender Singh) Judge Pankaj Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2020.07.08 16:35:39 +05'30'