Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajay Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2020
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
Bench: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.51194/2019
(Ajay Kumar Vs. State of M.P. )
1
Jabalpur, Dated :29 / 07 /2020
Shri Amitabh Gupta, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, P.L. for the respondent / State.
The proceeding was convened through video
conferencing.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is the third application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant Ajay Kumar was arrested on 21.07.2018 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 66D of I.T. Act 2008.
The first and second bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 05.10.2018 and 18.01.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 36387/2018 and M.Cr.C. No. 1229/2019 respectively.
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 and for that 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 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.51194/2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. State of M.P. ) 2 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 applicant in connivance with another 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 the applicant 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 applicant Ajay by Email on his email ID [email protected], who forwarded that message to Sahil on his Email ID [email protected]. Modus Operandi of the applicant and other co-accused 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. Co-accused Jaspreet Sachdeva provided them internet connection, space THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.51194/2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. State of M.P. ) 3 and other facilities to run the center. The static IP address used in the crime belonged to co-accused 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 the applicant is an unemployed youth who was offered a job in a call centre by one Sahil Dagar. He started his job as an office attendant. The applicant being an employee gave his mobile number as part of his records, which was abused by the Sahil Dagar without the knowledge of the applicant. From the charge sheet, it is clear that the applicant's mobile No. 8800750951 was not actually used for the purpose of creation of the alleged website. During the investigation, it was found that the static IP address used in the aforesaid crime belonged to one Jaspreet Sachdeva which clearly shows that co-accused Jaspreet Sachdeva defrauded the applicant also. Applicant himself is a victim of fraud committed on him by his employer. Even the statement of complainant Vinita Bajpayi has been recorded by the trial court. She did not depose anything against the applicant. She admitted in her cross- examination 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 21.07.2018 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 applicant in connivance with other co-accused THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.51194/2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. State of M.P. ) 4 persons created a phishing website through which he committed fraud upon innocent persons. Earlier bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed on merits. there is no change in circumstance ever since , so he should not be released on bail.
Complainant Vinita Bajpayi in her examination-in-chief clearly deposed that she paid Rs. 10/- through her credit card but instead of Rs. 10/-, Rs. 10010/- got deducted from her account and in this regard, she logged a written report Ex.P-1. At this stage, this court cannot ascertain the veracity of the statements of the complainant by evaluating her statement on merits. The statements of other prosecution witnesses have to be recorded. Two earlier bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed on merit by the coordinate bench of this court, there has been no change in the circumstances ever since except the period of detention. But, only on that ground applicant is not entitled to get bail. Hon'ble 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"
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.51194/2019 (Ajay Kumar Vs. State of M.P. ) 5 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 whole 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)
sarathe Judge
Digitally signed
by NAVEEN
KUMAR
SARATHE
Date: 2020.07.30
13:49:44 +05'30'