Karnataka High Court
Vishal Sinha vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 308
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8519 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. Vishal Sinha,
S/o. Dr. Lala Ranjan Sinha,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Attal Tea Estate,
P.S. Hattighisha,
Naxal Basi Darjeeling.
2. Sweta Verma Nee Sinha,
W/o. Shanthanu Sinha,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at No.33 Sector 52,
Noida District, Gautama,
Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 201 301.
3. Smt. Prathima Sinha,
W/o. Rajiv Ranjan Sinha,
Aged about 60 years,
House Wife,
R/at No.203, Aditya Homes,
West Bowring Canal Road,
Patna, Bihar - 800 015.
4. Rajiv Ranjan Sinha,
S/o. late Dr. Tarani Prasad,
Aged 70 years,
Retired Employee of CRPM,
-2-
R/at No.203, Aditya Homes,
West Bowring Canal Road,
Patna, Bihar - 800 015.
5. Smt. Prativa Srivatava,
W/o. Umesh Srivatava,
Aged about 50 years,
Part time accountant
At NGO R/at No.40/1A,
Durga Charan Doctor Road,
Police Station Taltala,
Kolkotta - 14. ...Petitioners
(By Sri. Rakshith R. for Sri. S. Shankarappa, Advocates)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Cyber Crime Police Station,
Represented by HCGP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru - 01. ...Respondent
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Cr.No.5515/2019 registered by
Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences
punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC and
Sections 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act.
-3-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioners before this Court are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 6 in the FIR registered in Crime No.5515/2019 under Section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners. Learned HCGP has filed a detailed statement of objection opposing the petition and has relied on the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 06.04.2018 prohibiting dealing in virtual currencies (VCs).
3. FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by one Venkatesh Murthy T. The allegations made therein relate to the transaction entered into by him with accused No.1 to purchase Bitcoins. According to him accused No.1 represented himself as a stock broker dealing with 'Cryptocurrency'. The complainant invested Rs.75 lakhs with accused No.1 in two accounts. -4-
4. The further allegation is that accused No.1 started luring more people into 'Crypto invest' across India, and in foreign countries like Singapore, Malaysia, by offering big returns monthly. He launched 'Crypto invest' application in the Playstore in April 2018, through which the transaction was carried on between the complainant and accused No.1.
5. The allegations insofar as the petitioners are concerned are that the petitioners herein hugely benefited by the transactions carried on by accused No.1. The further allegation is that accused No.1 sponsored his relatives and cousins marriages and gifted them with huge gold and other valuables.
6. The above allegations do not make out the ingredients of any of the above offences insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Section 66C deals with punishment for identity theft. As per this provision, whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique -5- identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh. Section 66D provides for punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource. As per this provision, whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
7. A reading of the FIR and the allegations levelled in the complaint indicate that the material allegations constituting the above offences are directed only against accused No.1. Petitioners are implicated in the above offences mainly on the ground that they are the beneficiaries from accused No.1. The same does not constitute the ingredients of the offences insofar as petitioners are concerned. In that view of the matter, the -6- custodial interrogation of the petitioners, in my view, is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. Even otherwise, according to the complainant the transaction entered into by him are evidenced in the form of electronic evidence. As such, there cannot be any possibility of the petitioners herein tampering with the said evidence. In that view of the matter, petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-
Criminal petition is allowed. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and shall enlarge them on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;-7-
(ii) They shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when
required;
(iii) They shall produce all the documents in their possession relating to the matter under investigation.
(iv) They shall co-operate in the
investigation;
(v) They shall not tamper with the
evidence and shall not threaten or
allure the prosecution witnesses; and
(v) They shall mark their attendance in Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, on the 15th and 30th of every calendar month until submission of the final report.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV