Mumbai, January 20, 2024: The Mumbai Sessions Court has denied bail to two defendants, Bhaskar Amritlal Gohil (44) and Rajesh Muljibhai Manek (49), in connection with a substantial cyber fraud case amounting to ₹1.27 crore. The court, presided by Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne, ruled against the bail request, citing ongoing investigations and concerns over evidence tampering. The case, filed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, revolves around allegations of orchestrated cyber fraud.
Background of the Case
According to court documents, the case began on February 9, 2023, when Dharmesh Trivedi, a Mumbai resident, reported a sophisticated scam involving a fake online job offer. Trivedi received a message on his Telegram account, proposing part-time work involving giving ratings and “likes” to online movie platforms, with rewards promised for his participation. Lured by the prospect of quick earnings, Trivedi registered on the provided website and subsequently made deposits, which totaled approximately ₹1,27,86,591. When attempts to withdraw his earnings were blocked, he realized he had been defrauded.
Involvement of the Defendants
Investigators uncovered that funds from Trivedi’s deposits were transferred to several accounts, including one belonging to Akshay Jain, a Delhi resident, who allegedly received ₹44,01,408. From Jain’s account, a portion of ₹10 lakh was reportedly transferred to Bhaskar Gohil’s account, who is now an accused. Gohil contends that his bank account was controlled by his co-defendant, Rajesh Manek, who, in turn, claims he acted on instructions from a third party, identified only as “Pintubhai.”
Prosecution’s Argument
The prosecution has maintained that both Gohil and Manek played integral roles in the fraudulent scheme, asserting that they were complicit in transferring and laundering the illicit funds. Their alleged connection with untraceable individuals like Akshay Jain and Pintubhai has raised further suspicions. Authorities suspect that releasing the accused on bail could lead to tampering with electronic evidence, an essential component of the investigation. The prosecution also highlighted the possibility of the defendants fleeing, given the severity of the case.
Defense Arguments for Bail
The defense argued that both defendants were merely pawns and not the orchestrators of the fraud. They claimed that Gohil, as the primary breadwinner, has family responsibilities and is suffering from a severe health condition (HIV), requiring regular medical attention. The defense emphasized that Gohil and Manek were cooperative with law enforcement and had no prior criminal records. They even offered to deposit the alleged ₹10 lakh into the court as a sign of good faith.
Court’s Decision and Key Observations
Judge Sasne, after reviewing the facts, ruled against granting bail, citing specific reasons:
- Evidence Tampering Risk: The court observed that the digital evidence involved in this case could easily be altered or erased if the defendants were released, making a thorough investigation challenging.
- Seriousness of the Crime: The court underscored the gravity of the charges, noting that cyber fraud cases of this magnitude have broad implications, necessitating a meticulous and prolonged investigation.
- Health Grounds: Addressing Gohil’s medical condition, Judge Sasne noted a report from the jail authorities confirming that he was receiving adequate medical treatment, thereby negating the argument for bail based on health concerns.
Judge Sasne emphasized that allowing bail at this stage would risk compromising the investigation and impede the course of justice. Hence, the bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was rejected.
Implications of the Case
This case highlights the challenges that courts face in cybercrime cases, especially those involving digital fraud, where the evidence can be vulnerable to tampering. The court’s decision reinforces the message that involvement in financial cybercrime carries serious legal consequences. The case also points to the need for stronger cybersecurity measures to protect individuals from online fraud schemes.
As investigations continue, authorities aim to trace the remaining suspects, including Akshay Jain and Pintubhai. The case serves as a stark reminder of the vigilance required in the digital age, where cyber fraud has become increasingly sophisticated and challenging for law enforcement agencies worldwide.
