Mumbai, August 1, 2023 – Amit Abhinadan Jain, accused in a cyber fraud case involving fake job offers, has been denied bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay. Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne rejected Jain’s application, citing the ongoing investigation and his alleged active participation in the crime.

Jain was arrested on July 4, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 75/2022, registered with the BKC Cyber Cell West region, Mumbai. The case involves allegations of cheating, forgery, and identity theft under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.

The Allegations and Modus Operandi

The complainant, Ankita Shringare, reported receiving a WhatsApp message offering a job. Upon expressing interest, she was directed to follow an Instagram account and complete assigned tasks. Initially, she received small payments for completing these tasks, building a sense of trust. Subsequently, she was asked to deposit larger sums of money, including from her mother’s account, with promises of higher returns and commissions.

When Shringare attempted to withdraw her deposited funds and commissions, she was unable to do so. Instead, she was asked to deposit an additional Rs. 10 lakhs. Realizing she had been defrauded, she filed a police complaint.

Prosecution’s Case and Evidence Presented

The prosecution argued that Jain was directly involved in the fraud. They presented evidence showing that beneficiary bank accounts, where the complainant’s money was deposited, were linked to addresses in Gurgaon and West Bengal. Crucially, one of these accounts belonged to “Shri Adinath Trading Co.,” of which Jain is the proprietor. Another account in ICICI Bank was also in Jain’s name, and funds were traced to a third account also belonging to him. ATM withdrawals were made in Gurgaon.

A search of the address provided in the bank account details led to the recovery of 39 debit cards from various companies, multiple credit cards, 28 cheque books from different banks, and debit card kits. The prosecution also noted that Jain had returned Rs. 5,13,000, indicating his involvement and awareness of the fraudulent activity.

Defense Arguments and Court’s Decision

Jain’s defense argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated. They claimed he had undergone custodial interrogation and that nothing was to be seized or recovered from him. They asserted he had not communicated or sent messages to anyone, was not the operator of the fraud, and had not created any WhatsApp or Telegram accounts. They also emphasized that he was the sole earning member of his family and a permanent resident of his address, posing no flight risk.

However, the court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the ongoing investigation and the substantial evidence linking Jain to the crime. Judge Sasne noted that the investigation had revealed Jain’s “active participation” and “vital role” in the cyber fraud. The court also highlighted the technical nature of the offense and the potential for Jain to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail.

Reasons for Bail Rejection

The court cited the following reasons for denying bail:

• Ongoing Investigation: The investigation is still in progress, and releasing Jain could hinder the collection of further evidence.
• Active Participation: The evidence suggests Jain played a significant role in the fraudulent activities.
• Risk of Tampering: There is a risk that Jain could tamper with evidence or threaten prosecution witnesses if released.
• Flight Risk: The prosecution argued that Jain could flee justice if granted bail.
• Technical Nature of the Offense: Cybercrimes require specialized investigation, and releasing the accused could impede this process.

Implications and Future Proceedings

The denial of bail underscores the court’s seriousness in addressing cyber fraud cases. The evidence presented by the prosecution highlights the sophisticated nature of these crimes and the need for thorough investigation.

Jain will remain in custody as the investigation continues. The case will proceed to trial, where the prosecution will present its evidence, and the defense will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations. This decision shows the courts stance on cyber crime, and the seriousness of the offense.