Bombay High Court
Abhaykumar Rajeshwar Ram vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Cyber ... on 23 July, 2024
2024:BHC-NAG:7910
(1) 35.ba.497.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.497 OF 2024
Abhaykumar Rajeshwar Ram
Vs.
State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Cyber Police Station,
Buldhana, District Buldhana
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, APP for respondent/State.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATED : 23/07/2024
1. The applicant came to be arrested on
15.01.2024 in connection with Crime No.38/2023
registered with Cyber Police Station, Buldhana,
District Buldhana for the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 470, 120-B, 471 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66(c), 66(d) of
the Information Technology Act.
2. The accusation against the present
applicant is on the basis of the report lodged, on an
allegation that the informant was desiring to have
e-Scooter dealership of Ather Company. It is further
alleged that the informant along with one Shubham
searched the website of Ather Company on Google
platform. On 01.07.2023 they found the website on
Google thereafter, they filed the dealership form
online by giving his mobile number. On 22.07.2023
(2) 35.ba.497.2024
they received a phone from one person disclosing his
name as a Vedant Sharma who projected himself as
Manager of Ather Company. As per his direction, the
informant forwarded his Aadhar Card, Pan Card,
Income Tax Returns, land documents on the e-mail
address. On 31.07.2023 he received a phone call
from a person projecting himself as Rahul Mathue
Senior Manager of Ather Company and asked him to
deposit processing fee and other charges in the
account of one Abhishek Kumar. It is further alleged
that on 01.08.2023 the informant deposited
Rs.1,55,500/-, on 05.08.2023 Rs.7,75,000/- and on
16.08.2023 Rs.19,75,000/-. Thus, total amount of
Rs.29,05,500/- was deposited through RTGS. Again
on 16.08.2023 Vedant Sharma called him and asked
him to deposit Rs.18,75,000/-, therefore, the
informant suspected about the activities and lodged
the report. On the basis of the said report, initially
the crime was registered against the unknown
person.
3. During the investigation, the name of the
present applicant is revealed and he was arrested.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Bhandarkar for the
applicant submitted that as far as the applicant is
concerned, his name is nowhere disclosed on the
website of that e-Scooter Ather Company. He
submitted that the registration of the informant is on
the website. He has deposited the amount by RTGS.
(3) 35.ba.497.2024
The amount was not received by the present
applicant. As far as the allegations are concerned,
which are against Abhishek Kumar in whose account
the amount was deposited. The present applicant is
arrested merely on the basis of the mobile phone,
which was seized from his possession and was
attached with the account of one Deepak Thakur,
Pradip Thakur in whose account the some amount
was deposited. Thus, as far as the involvement of
the present applicant is concerned, except the
seizure of the said mobile phone, there is no other
material to connect him with the alleged offence.
Now, the investigation is already completed, charge-
sheet is filed, further incarceration of the present
applicant is not required. As far as the receipt of the
amount is concerned, there is no material with the
investigating agency to show that the present
applicant has received some amount, in view of that,
the applicant be released on bail.
5. Learned APP strongly opposed the said
application on the ground that there is a prima facie
material against the present applicant. During
investigation, ATM Card, Pan Card, Identity Card are
seized from the present applicant which shows that
he has collected several bank documents, ATM Cards
and Pan Cards from the needy people and prepared
the forged documents and therefore, the said
documents are used. He has also created the fake
website and collected the amount with the help of the
(4) 35.ba.497.2024
another accused. Thus, considering the role of the
present applicant, if he released on bail he would
abscond and would not be available for trial. In view
of that, bail application deserves to be rejected.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the
applicant and learned APP for the State, perused the
investigation papers from which it reveals that the
informant has registered himself for the dealership
on the website namely, atherelectricdealer.com. The
domain name of the website is
ATHERELECTRICDEALER.COM. Its creation date is
23.11.2021 and place of creation is Florida i.e. United
States of America.
7. During the investigation, the Investigating
Officer has also collected the data regarding the
depositing of the amount. It reveals that the amount
was deposited in the name of Abhishek Kumar and
one Pradip Thakur. The connection of the present
applicant as per the prosecution is that, the mobile
phone bearing No.8879496194 is affiliated to the
account of said Thakur and the said mobile phone
was seized from the possession of the present
applicant. It is further contention of the prosecution
that though present applicant is not doing any work,
he has incurred the expenses by giving the said
amount to the third person for purchasing the said
car. His details regarding travelling by Air are also
collected which shows that frequently he is incurring
(5) 35.ba.497.2024
the expenses towards the travelling though he is not
having any earning source. On the basis of same,
the investigating agency attempted to connect the
present applicant with the alleged offence.
8. On perusal of the investigation papers, it
reveals that it is only mentioned that the involvement
of the present applicant is in the forgery of the
documents but what exactly the act was committed
by the present applicant is not mentioned. As far as
the seizure of the mobile is concerned, the
investigating agency has not collected the document
to show that said SIM Card is in the name of Pradip
Thakur or in the name of the present applicant.
None of the account statements shows any amount is
received by the present applicant through the
transfer in his account. As far as the allegation of the
transfer of the amount is concerned, which is against
the Pradip Thakur and one Abhishek. Thus,
considering the entire material collected during the
investigation, except the seizure of the mobile phone
which is affiliated to the account of the Pradip Thakur,
there is no other material collected to show the
involvement of the present applicant. Though
involvement of the present applicant is in the
economic offence, considering the nature of the
evidence collected by the investigating agency and
the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791
(6) 35.ba.497.2024
wherein it is observed that the gravity of the offence,
the object of the Special Act, and the attending
circumstances are a few of the factors to be taken
note of, along with the period of sentence. After all,
an economic offence cannot be classified as such, as
it may involve various activities and may differ from
one case to another.
9. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the above decision is reproduced here for the
reference:
"23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the
judgments cited on either side including the one
rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court,
it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence
relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as
the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the
exception so as to ensure that the accused has
the opportunity of securing fair trial. However,
while considering the same the gravity of the
offence is an aspect which is required to be kept
in view by the Court. The gravity for the said
purpose will have to be gathered from the facts
and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping
in view the consequences that would befall on the
society in cases of financial irregularities, it has
been held that even economic offences would fall
under the category of "grave offence" and in such
circumstance while considering the application for
bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal
with the same, being sensitive to the nature of
allegation made against the accused. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of the
offence is also the term of sentence that is
prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged
(7) 35.ba.497.2024
to have committed. Such consideration with
regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which
is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test
that would be normally applied. In that regard
what is also to be kept in perspective is that even
if the allegation is one of grave economic offence,
it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every
case since there is no such bar created in the
relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor
does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore,
the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of
the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent
of another case alone will not be the basis for
either grant or refusal of bail though it may have
a bearing on principle. But ultimately the
consideration will have to be on case-to-case
basis on the facts involved therein and securing
the presence of the accused to stand trial."
10. Admittedly, The grant or refusal to grant
bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant
or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts
and circumstances of each particular case. But at the
same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely
because of the sentiments of the community against
the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a
criminal cases are to relieve the accused of
imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of
keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time,
to keep the accused constructively in the custody of
the court, whether before or after conviction, to
assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the
court.
(8) 35.ba.497.2024
11. In the light of the above facts, here in the
present case, as considering the investigation is
already completed, charge-sheet is filed and the
nature of the investigation and the role attributed to
the present applicant, his further incarceration is not
required and therefore, the application deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following
order:
ORDER
(i) The application is allowed.
(ii) The applicant Abhaykumar Rajeshwar Ram shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.38/2023 registered with Cyber Police Station, Buldhana, District Buldhana for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 470, 120-B, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66(c), 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.
(iii) The applicant shall attend the Local Crime Branch twice in a month on 1 st and 15th of every month and the Local Crime Branch shall record his presence.
(iv) The applicant shall produce his passport if he is having before the investigating agency.
(v) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.
(9) 35.ba.497.2024
(vi) The applicant shall not induce, threat
or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case.
12. The application is disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/07/2024 18:19:00