Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saurav Goel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2019
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:
BENCH AT INDORE
M.Cr.C.No.36084/2019
(Saurav Goel Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 09.09.2019
Shri A.V. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Arvind Sharma, learned public prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Shri Amit Dube, learned counsel for the respondent (objector).
This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of bail. The applicant is in custody since 21.07.2019 in connection with the case registered under Crime No.103/2019, P.S. Cyber Cell, Indore for the offences said to have been committed under Section 420, 467, 468 of the IPC and Section 66 (D) of the Information Technology (amendment) Act, 2008.
As per prosecution story, one Mathew Pulican aged about 75 years alongwith his wife filed the written complaint in the cyber cell against the unknown person on 02.06.2019 for the offence of cheating and offence under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology (amendment) Act, 2008. He has alleged in the complaint that he was dubbed and cheated by some unknown person in the name of insurance policy for total Rs.39.00 lac. He has deposited the aforesaid amount in the different bank accounts on several occasions since 03.06.2016. According to him, one Kirti Sharma met him in the year 2007. Being 2 an agent of Aviva Life Insurance Company, he gave a proposal for investment of money in an insurance policy. The complainant has been asked to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- as one time premium of the life insurance policy. As per the terms and conditions of the policy he would get Rs.50.00 lac after 20 years of maturity period. Upon believing the aforesaid proposals, he purchased two policies in the name of his grand son and daughter and paid Rs.3.00 lac vide Cheque dated 23.11.2007. After payment of the premium he received a phone call for deposit of second installment of the premium. He decided to withdraw the policy as initially he was asked to pay one time premium. He has canceled the policy and got the amount of Rs.1,73,416/- on 08.12.2010. On 11.01.2016 he received a call from Palak Mishra that the amount deducted Rs.1,26,584/- has been invested in the another policy and that amount has become Rs.5,97,560/- and he was offered that he will get the amount after depositing some amount in the bank account and he was asked to fill certain papers and gradually deposited the amount. Later on he received similar type of calls in respect of different policies. The cyber team conducted the detail investigation and collected the documents. The present applicant who is a resident of Uttar Pradesh engaged in withdrawal of the cash deposited from various bank accounts. As per the investigation, so far he had withdrawn over Rs.90.00 lac illegally by using his point of 3 sale machine (POS).
Shri A.V. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been registered against the unknown persons. The applicant has never met the complaint. He is doing the business in the name of M/s Krishna Infotech. He is having registration with the Central Board of Excise and Custom Department of Labour, GST, Udyog Adhar etc. He is also working as a sub-agent of company called Money Gram Payment System. He is having facility of POS from the SBI. He is regularly submitting his return to the Income Tax Department and there is no unusual transaction. He has been falsely implicated. He is in jail since last 2-3 months. He is the only bread winner of his family which includes wife and two minor children. Since, he is in jail, therefore, they are facing financial crises and hardship, therefore, he be released on bail.
Shri Arvind Sharma, learned public prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the bail application by submitting that the investigation has not been completed so far and other accused involved in the offence have not been arrested so far, therefore, at this stage, the applicant is not liable to be released.
Shri Amit Dube, learned counsel for the respondent (objector) opposes the bail application by submitting that the POS machine is strictly for transfer of money not for cash withdrawal. The applicant has withdrawn the 4 amount of Rs.90.00 lac illegally and received the share. The motive of the accused and present applicant is to target and rob the senior citizens by breaching the data privacy and using forged and fabricated documents. The investigation is going on, therefore, at this stage, he is not liable to be released on bail. Hence, his bail application be rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary alongwith the material collected by the Cyber Police .
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that at this stage no case for grant of bail is made out. Hence, this M.Cr.C stands dismissed.
(VIVEK RUSIA) Judge Jasleen Digitally signed by Jasleen Singh Saluja Date: 2019.09.16 18:44:43 +05'30'