B.A. 63/24 MHCC020004302024 IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.63 OF 2024

1. Z Ali Mohammed S/o A Zakir Ali Age 33 years, Occ : Farmer,
present address : Graveyard Road, Masjid B, Jalria,
Alipur Gauribidanur, Post/Tal-Alipur, District – Chikkaballapur,
Karnataka 561 213.

And Permanent Resident of House No.11-132, Aval Konda,
Thugundram, Gangadhara Nellore, Chitoor, Andrapradesh 517421.
2. Naushadali A S/o A Ayub Khan Present address : Graveyard Road, Masjid B,
Jalria, Alipur Gauribidanur, Post / Tal – Alipur, District – Chikkaballapur,
Karnataka 561213 And Permanent Resident of House No.000, Aval Konda,
Thugundram, Gangadhara Nellore, Chitoor, Andrapradesh 517421 … Applicants

– Versus

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of North Region Cyber Police Station vide Cr. No.97/2023)
… Respondent

Appearance :Adv. Rohan Sawant / Adv. Tehzib J. Kazmi for the applicants. APP Iqbal Solkar for the respondent / State CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 01/02/2024 ORDER

This is bail application by the accused u/sec.439 of The Criminal Procedure Code for releasing them on bail in connection with C.R.No.97/2023 registered with North Region Cyber Police Station, Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable u/sec.120(B), 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2.It is alleged by the applicants / accused that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused are arrested on 23.11.2023. They have undergone custodial interrogation. The investigation is completed. There is no point in keeping accused behind bars till conclusion of trial. They are the permanent resident of their given address therefore they prayed for releasing them on bail.

3.The prosecution opposed the application by filing reply vide Exh.2. It is the contention of the prosecution that if the accused are released on bail it will affect on the collection of evidence. If the
accused are released on bail there are chances of flee away from justice. If accused are released on bail there are chances of threatening of prosecution witnesses and tampering of prosecution evidence. Hence, prosecution prayed for rejection of the application.

4.Read the application, say filed by the prosecution. Heard the ld. Advocate for the applicant, ld. APP for the respondent / State.

5.I have gone through the application, reply, documents filed on record. It is alleged in the FIR by the informant that during the period from 16.11.2023 to 19.11.2023, she received message from
unknown person assuring her to give part time job. He told her to give review to the Google Map Link sent by him on You Tube as well as to buy and sell by clicking Crypto Currency link. He asked informant to complete said tasks to get income and cheated informant for amount of Rs.28,43,000/6.

From the record it can be seen that the applicant were arrested during investigation on 23.11.2023. The reply of the prosecution shows that out of the fraud amount Rs.6 lakhs were credited in the account of the applicant Z Ali Mohd. It is also revealed that applicant No.2 Naushadali has asked applicant No.1 Z Ali Mohd. to open bank account and to handover passbook, chequebook, debit card and mobile Sim Card to Naushadali – applicant No.2. During investigation it is also revealed that applicant Z Ali Mohd. made other four persons to open such type of account in the bank and to allow one Mr. Zuher @ Sayyed Abbas of Alipur, Chikballapura, Bangalore to use these account. It is also revealed that for that purpose of opening of such bank account and for it use the account holders were paid Rs.10,000/-. According to the prosecution both these accused were acting as per the instruction of Zuher @ Sayyad Abbas and Saurabh Hussain. Both the persons are yet to be arrested. Both the applicants are resident of Karnataka State / Andhra Pradesh. Investigation in the offence is not yet completed. Recovery is pending. It is a Cyber fraud. It requires detail and technical investigation. If the accused are released
on bail they will tamper with the prosecution evidence. They are not local resident, they are from Andhra Pradesh. There is substance in the contention of the prosecution that the accused will flee away from the justice and will not be available for further investigation. Considering all these facts and also considering the aspect that charge sheet is not filed, investigation is in progress, I am of the view that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I pass the following order :

ORDER

Criminal Bail Application No.63 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off accordingly.

Date : 01/02/2024 Dictated on Transcribed on Signed by HHJ on : 01.02.2024 : 02.02.2024 : 03.02.2024 ( RAJESH A. SASNE ) Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai. 5 B.A. 63/24
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.” 03/02/2024 5.17 p.m. UPLOAD DATE TIME J.S. Chavan NAME OF STENOGRAPHER Name of the Judge (With Court H. H. Additional Sessions Judge Shri. R.A Room No.) Sasne, Court Room No. 30. Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 01/02/2024 ORDER signed by P.O. on 03/02/2024 ORDER uploaded on 03/02/2024