B.A. 83/24 MHCC020005572024

IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION No.83 OF 2024

1. Bhaskar Amritlal Gohil Age 44 years, R/o Ramchand Baijnath Pandey Chawl, Dahisar, Mumbai.
2. Rajesh Muljibhai Manek Age 49 years, R/o Devchhaya Sector 3, Shanti Nagar, Jain Temple, Mira Road East. … Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra (At the instance of Cyber Cell Central Division, vide CR.No.33/2023
(C.C.T.N.S. No.34/23)) … Respondent

Appearance :Advocate Umesh Kumar for the applicant.
A.P.P. Iqbal Solkar for the respondent / State.
CORAM : RAJESH A. SASNE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, COURT ROOM No. 30.
DATED : 17/01/2024 ORDER

This is an application filed by the accused u/sec.439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing them on bail in connection with CR.No.CR.No.33/2023 (C.C.T.N.S. No.34/23) registered with Cyber Cell Central Division, Mumbai for the commission of offences punishable u/sec.419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 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 applicants are in custody since 28.12.2023, They have fully co-operated to the investigating officer. The applicants were sole earning member for their family. They have undergone custodial interrogation. Nothing is to be seized or recovered from the possession of the accused. The applicant No.1 is suffering from serious deceased. The applicants / accused are permanent resident of their given address. Therefore, there is no point in keeping accused behind bars till conclusion of trial. 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. There is
material substance against the applicants / accused. If accused are released on bail they will flee from the justice. There is material evidence to show the involvement of the accused in the present crime. If
the 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, and ld. APP for the State.

5. It is the case of the prosecution that the informant Dharmesh Trivedi on 09.02.2023 received message on his telegram account offering him a part time job to give likes or to rating a website
ovie and to earn the amount in reward. Accordingly website link was forwarded on his mobile. He registered himself for the said job. Time to time he was asked to deposit certain amount for the purpose to get amount in reward. Accordingly he deposited amount near about 1,27,86,591/-. His request for withdrawal of said amount from his account held by said company was not allowed. Lateron he came to
know that he was duped for Rs.1,27,86,591/-.

6.During investigation it was revealed that out of the amount deposited by the informant, some amount has been deposited in seven different bank accounts. In the bank account of Akshay Jain of Delhi
amount of Rs.44,01,408/- have been credited. Till today said person is not traceable. Investigation further revealed that from the bank account of Akshay Jain Rs.10 lakhs have been transferred to the account of applicant / accused Bhaskar. According to the prosecution as per say of the accused Bhaskar said account is being operated by the applicant / accused No.2 Rajesh Manek. According to applicant Rajesh one Mr. Pintubhai was instructing him to operate said account. The police are in search of said Akshay Jain and said Pintubhai. From the facts on record it appears that out of amount of fraud Rs.10 lakhs have been credited in the account of applicant / accused Bhaskar. In spite of credit of said amount the applicant Bhaskar has not taken any action if he was not involved in the crime. According to him his bank account is operated by applicant No.2 Rajesh. Information is received to the prosecution that the applicant No.2 Rajesh was operating the bank account as per the instruction of one Pintubhai. The applicant appears to be beneficiary of fraud. They are having knowledge about illegal use of bank account. The specific role attributed to the accused No.2 Rajesh is to operate the
bank account. The accused No.2 Bhaskar is the account holder of beneficiary account. Thereby both the accused are involved in the crime. They appears to have been arrested on 28.12.2023. The
investigation in the case is in progress. Accused Akshay Jain and Pintubhai are yet to be arrested. If at this stage of collection of evidence, the applicants are released on bail, they will tamper with the
prosecution evidence. The evidence appears to be digital or electronics evidence. There are chances of tampering of such evidence. Hence, at this initial stage said accused are not entitled to be released on bail.

7.It is the contention of the applicant / accused No.1 Bhaskar that he is patient of HIV and needs constant care. The report of jail authority was called. Same has been placed on record at Exh.3. It is
reported that said accused is provided with treatment and his condition is stable. Hence there are no such circumstances which makes the applicant Bhaskar entitled for bail on medical ground. The ld advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants are ready to deposit the amount of Rs.10 lakhs which alleged to have been received by them. I am of the view that investigation is at initial stage. There is case of fraud. Detail and technical investigation is in process. At this initial stage even by deposit of amount of Rs.10 lakhs, the accused are not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, I pass the following order :

ORDER

Criminal Bail Application No.83 of 2024 is rejected and disposed off accordingly.
Date : 17.01.2024

Dictated on Transcribed on Signed by HHJ on: 17.01.2024 : 18.01.2024 : 20.01.2024 ( RAJESH A. SASNE ) Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Mumbai. 5 B.A. 83/24 “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED ORDER.” 20/01/2024 3.35 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 17/01/2024
ORDER signed by P.O. on 20/01/2024 ORDER uploaded on 20/01/2024