Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva @ Jassi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 August, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C.No.4998/2020
(JASPREET SINGH SACHDEVA @ JASSI VS. STATE OF M.P.)
JABALPUR Dated : 28/8/2020
Shri Gurmeet Singh and B.P. Singh learned counsels for the applicant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is the second bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva @ Jassi was arrested on 27/4/2019 in Crime No. 119/2018 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Branch Bhopal, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 419, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 66C and 68D of I.T. Act 2008.
The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merit by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30/8/2019 passed in M.Cr.C.No.34917/2019.
As per prosecution story, complainant Vineeta Bajpayi lodged a written complaint at P.S. Cyber Crime Branch Bhopal averring that she was contacted by a person on her mobile phone who told her that he was from Shinework consultancy and she might get a job as an accountant in a company like Godrej or Mahindra for which she is required to get herself registered with the website namely www. Shinework.in, after paying the registration charge of Rs. 10/-. It is further averred that when she tried to pay the aforesaid registration fee of Rs. 10/- an extra amount of Rs.10000/- got deducted from her account. The complainant came to know about the mischief when she received a message from her credit card company. On that report, police registered crime No. 119/2018 at Police Station Cyber Crime Branch Bhopal, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 419, 468, 471, 120B of IPC and Section 66C and 66D of I.T. Act 2008 and investigated the matter. During the investigation, it was found that ` Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.08.29 13:08:35 +05'30' co-accused Ajay Kumar in connivance with other co-accused persons Vishal Goswami, Sahil Dagar, Sonal Singh Rathore, Jayant and Gazal @ Sofiya created a website "www. Shinework.in" to cheat innocent people. Co- accused Vishal Goswami created that website and registered it on "Godaddy. com." For registering that site sim number 8800750951 belonging to co-accused Ajay Kumar and the sim number 8860357318 belonging to co-accused Sofiya were used and registration fee was paid by co-accused Sahil Dagar. Co-accused Vishal Goswami also prepared 50 fake IDs on Gmail and sent a list of those IDs to co-accused Ajay Kumar by Email on his email ID [email protected], who forwarded that message to Sahil on his Email ID [email protected]. Modus Operandi of the co-accused persons was that they used to call people and tell them that they could get jobs in big companies, but for that, they will have to register themselves on their website by paying ₹ 10 as fee. When people deposited the fee with their card to register they took note of their card number, account number, card expiry date etc. and by using that data transferred the money from victim's accounts to other wallet and thus cheated people. Applicant Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva @ Jassi provided them internet connection, space and other facilities to run the centre. The static IP address used in the crime was to applicant Jaspreet Sachdeva. So the police arrested the applicant and other co-accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. It is alleged that the Static IP address which was used to commit the crime was allotted to the applicant but in this regard, there are many contradiction and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses i.e. Deepak Kumar Mehto (PW-8), Sunil Chaturvedi (PW-9), Rohit Kumar Dwivedi (PW-10) and Suprabhat Majhi (PW-11). Even from the Statements of Kuldeep Singh (PW-6) and Ashutosh Sharma (PW-5), it is clear that at the time of incident applicant Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva @ Jassi was not in India, he was in Georgia which clearly shows that the Police falsely implicated the ` Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.08.29 13:09:06 +05'30' applicant in the crime. Even the statement of complainant Vinita Bajpayi has been recorded by the trial court. She did not depose anything against the applicant. She clearly deposed that due to her fault Rs. 10010/- got deducted from her account in place of Rs.10 which was refunded to her in 3 days. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has been in custody since 27/4/2019 and the conclusion of the trial will take time, hence prayed for the release of the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant in connivance with other co-accused persons created a phishing website through which they committed fraud upon innocent persons. The static IP address which was used in the crime belonged to applicant Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva @ Jassi and from the statement of prosecution witnesses, it is clearly proved that the said static IP address belongs to the applicant. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. There has been no change of circumstance since then. Even Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 09/12/2019 passed in SLP No.9/12/19, dismissed the bail application of the applicant, so he should not be released on bail.
Cybercrime is rising day by day. Cybercrime is a serious threat to innocent people who conduct their money transactions through the internet. Because of cybercrime the innocent people are not only losing their hard- earned money but also losing faith in the process of online money transactions which is not good for the economy of the country. The investigation of cybercrime is also difficult because it is committed by the miscreants from remote places and investigating agencies are not fully equipped and skilled to collect evidence against accused persons who commit cybercrime. So it is not always possible to get direct evidence against the accused persons who have committed Cybercrime. In this case also the crime was committed from New Delhi while the victim was at Bhopal. So the evidence collected by the prosecution should be seen as a whole to see the role of every miscreant who is allegedly involved in the crime.
` Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.08.29 13:09:17 +05'30' In this case complainant Vinita Bajpayi (PW-2) in her examination-in- chief clearly deposed that she paid Rs.10/- through her credit card, but instead a sum of Rs. 10,010/- got deducted from her account, regarding which she had logged a written report (Ex.P-1). It is also alleged that the IP address allotted to the applicant was used in committing the crime and from the statements of prosecution witnesses i.e. Deepak Kumar Mehto (PW-8), Sunil Chaturvedi (PW-9), Rohit Kumar Dwivedi (PW-10) and Suprabhat Majhi (PW-11) it is clear that the said IP addresses belonged to the applicant Jaspreet Singh Sachdeva @ Jassi. At this stage, this court cannot ascertain the veracity of the statements of the prosecution witnesses by evaluating their statements on merit. Earlier bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. His bail application has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 09/12/2019 passed in SLP No.9/12/19. Since then there has been no change in circumstance except the period of detention and only on that ground of custody period, the applicant is not entitled to get bail.
Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence. Apex court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 observed "It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law" as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169: 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments.
So, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
Hence, M.Cr.C. is rejected.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) JUDGE vs ` Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2020.08.29 13:09:28 +05'30' `