MHCC020102292022
IN THE SESSIONS COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1876 OF 2022
(CRIME NO.28 OF 2022, N. M. JOSHI MARG POLICE STATION)
CNR No.MHCC02-010229-2022
1. Vikas Sureshchand Sharma @
]
Vikas Sureshchand (as per Aadhar Card),]
Age about 25 years, Occ. : Student,
]
Residing at : H-1/34, Phase 1,
]
Budh Vihar, Sultanpuri, C block,
]
North West Delhi, Delhi – 110 086.
]
2. Salman Aanjur Ahmad,
]
Age : 28 years, Occ. : Barber,
]
Residing at C-49, Flat No.2, MAGIS Road,]
Rajdhani Park, Nangloi West,
]
Delhi, India – 110 041.
]
… Applicants/
Accused Nos.2 & 4
Vs.
State of Maharashtra,
Through N. M. Joshi Marg police station.

]
]
… Respondent
Appearances :Mr. Prasad Wagh, Ld. Adv. for applicants.
Mr. J. N. Suryawanshi, Ld. A.P.P. for respondent/State.
Mr. Manvendra Singh, Ld. Adv. for intervener/complainant.
CORAM : VISHAL S. GAIKE,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT ROOM NO.22.
DATE : 8th August, 2022.

-2-
BA 1876/22
ORDER
1.

This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Crime No.28 of
2022 registered at N. M. Joshi Marg police station for the offence
punishable under Sections 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant
Manohar Sitaram Govalkar, resident of Ashtavinayak Society, Ghansoli,
Navi Mumbai, Dist. Thane, was cheated by the present applicants by
fraudulently using his Credit Card details and withdrawing an amount
of Rs.96,876/- from A.T.M. It is alleged that, a woman had called him
on 27/01/2022, at 12.48 p.m. She told the complainant that she was
speaking from the Credit Card Department of State Bank of India and
gave him information about the protection of his Credit Card. She
fraudulently obtained last 4 digits of the complainant’s Credit Card and
thereafter, the said fraud was committed from the account of the
complainant.
3.

The say of the Investigating Officer was called. He has
stated that, the applicants’ accomplice Sonukumar is having his account
in I.D.F.C. First Bank and the accused had used initially a MobiKwik Pay
Wallet to transfer money from the complainant’s account. When the
said accused Sonukumar was arrested, he disclosed that, the applicants
were running a Call Centre along with other accused. On the basis of
information received during the investigation, the other accused were
arrested and their role in the commission of said crime was revealed. A
panchanama was prepared at the said illegal Call Centre in the
presence of two panch witnesses and the equipments used for running
-3-
BA 1876/22
the said illegal Call Centre were seized. The applicant No.1 Vikas
Sharma was involved in running the said Call Centre and he used to
transfer the amount obtained by him by cheating his victims into the
account of said Sonukumar. Applicant Salman Manjur Ahmed and
accused Vishal Phulchand Rathore then used to withdraw the said
amount from an A.T.M. and then, gave it to applicant Vikas Sharma.
Thereafter, Vikas Sharma used to give them commission from the said
amount. Co-accused Sachin is yet to be arrested. Applicant Vikas used
to speak in the voice of woman to cheat the victims. Applicants are
residents of Delhi and they have no permanent address. They have not
co-operated in the investigation and may not be available for further
investigation and trial, if they are released on bail. Applicants may
threaten and pressurise the complainant and witnesses and may
commit similar offences. Hence, the application may kindly be rejected.
4.

Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the applicants
submitted that, the applicants are innocent and have not committed
any offence, as alleged. The family members of the applicants are ready
to give the said amount of Rs.96,876/- to the
complainant. The
provisions invoked against the applicants are compoundable. Nothing
more is to be seized in the present crime. Applicants are ready to abide
any condition which may be imposed upon them, in the event of their
application being allowed. Hence, they may kindly be released on bail.
5.

During the course of hearing of the application, the
complainant appeared and filed his intervention application at Exh.3
and his affidavit at Exh.4. He has stated that, if the said amount of
Rs.96,876/- is given to him by the relatives of the applicants, then he
has no grievance against them. Complainant had orally submitted in
-4-
BA 1876/22
the Court that, the relatives of the applicants have paid him amount of
Rs.1 Lakh. Therefore, he has no grievance against the applicants and
has no objection, if they are granted bail by this Hon’ble Court.
6.

Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application and
submitted that, complainant is not the only person who has been
cheated through online fraud by the present applicants. The
investigation is in progress and other similar offences committed by the
applicants and absconding co-accused may come to light. Applicants
may abscond and may not be available for further investigation and
their trial. Though the offences under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the
Information Technology Act invoked against the applicants are
compoundable, but according to the proviso in Section 77-A of the said
Act, the Court shall not compound the said offence if it affects the
socio-economic conditions of the country. Hence, the application may
kindly be rejected.
7.

I have perused the F.I.R., case diary and documents filed on
record. The applicant No.1 was allegedly running illegal Call Centre
and he used to allegedly speak in woman’s voice to cheat his victims
through online fraud. The applicant No.2 used to allegedly withdraw
the said amount siphoned of from the accounts of the victims and
thereafter, give the same to applicant No.1. Though, the complainant
has settled the matter out of the Court with the relatives of the
applicants, but there is strong possibility that other similar crimes
which may have been committed through the said illegal Call Centre by
the present applicants may come to light during further investigation. It
is rightly pointed out by the learned A.P.P. that, according to the proviso
in Section 77-A of the said Act, the Court shall not compound the said
-5-
BA 1876/22
offence if it affects the socio-economic conditions of the country. In
recent years, the number of online frauds have increased manifold and
hundreds and thousands of unsuspecting victims are daily cheated by
the Cyber criminals and are deprived of their hard earned money. This
issue of online fraud needs to be dealt sternly. The say of the
Investigating Officer reflects that the applicants have not co-operated
during their police custody. Applicants are residents of Delhi. Therefore,
there is possibility that they may not be available for further
investigation and for their trial as they may abscond. Hence, in view of
the nature of allegations against the applicants and in the light of the
fact that investigation is still in progress, I am not inclined to allow the
present application and proceed to pass the following order :ORDER
Bail Application No.1876 of 2022 is hereby rejected and disposed off.
Digitally signed
by VISHAL
SADASHIVRAO
GAIKE
Date:
2022.08.08
15:37:48 +0530
Date : 08/08/2022.
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
: 08/08/2022.
: 08/08/2022.
:
( VISHAL SADASHIVRAO GAIKE )
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS COURT,
GREATER MUMBAI.

-6-
BA 1876/22
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
08/08/2022 at 3.40 p.m.

NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Bahushruta Y. Jambhale
Name of the Judge ( With Court H.H.J. Shri Vishal S. Gaike
Room No.)
(Court Room No.22)
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
of 08/08/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
08/08/2022.

JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on
08/08/2022.