Mumbai, January 24, 2024: In a significant development, the Sessions Court of Greater Mumbai granted bail to businessman Anuj Kumar Baleshwar Sah, who was arrested in connection with a cyber crime case registered at Cyber West Division Police Station. The court, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge A.A. Kulkarni, passed the order on January 23, 2024, allowing Sah’s release on a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one or two sureties of the same amount.
Case Background
Sah, a 21-year-old businessman residing in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, was taken into custody on January 7, 2023, in connection with Criminal Registration (C.R.) No. 20/2022. The case was filed under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 419 (cheating by impersonation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 384 (extortion), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), 500 (defamation), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). Additionally, the case included charges under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) (identity theft and cheating by impersonation using a computer resource), and Sections 67 and 67(A) (publishing or transmitting obscene material) of the Information Technology Act.
Arguments Presented in Court
During the hearing, Sah’s defense, represented by Advocate Javed Mohammed Idris, contended that the accused had been in custody for over a year and that the investigation had been completed with the filing of a charge sheet. The defense argued that Sah had been falsely implicated and that there was no further need for his detention as no recoveries or seizures were pending from him. Furthermore, it was submitted that Sah had sustained injuries while in jail and required specialized medical treatment, which was not feasible in custody.
On the other hand, the prosecution, led by Additional Public Prosecutor J.N. Suryawanshi, strongly opposed the bail application. The investigating officer emphasized that Sah had played an active role in the alleged cyber crimes and was a beneficiary of the proceeds obtained through fraudulent activities. The prosecution expressed concerns that his release could lead to evidence tampering and hinder the ongoing investigation.
Court’s Observations and Order
After considering the arguments from both sides, the court acknowledged that the charge sheet had already been filed and that Sah’s bank account had been seized during the investigation. Notably, the court observed that the accused had made some payments to the informant. The judge concluded that further detention was not necessary at this stage, provided certain conditions were imposed to ensure his availability for future proceedings.
Accordingly, the court passed the following orders:
- Sah shall be released on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with one or two sureties of the same amount.
- He must cooperate with the ongoing investigation and appear before the Cyber West Division Police Station whenever summoned by the investigating officer.
- Sah is required to furnish proof of his residential address and contact details to the investigating officer.
- He must not directly or indirectly influence or threaten any witnesses related to the case.
- Bail shall be executed before the competent lower court.
Legal Implications and Future Course
This decision is likely to have an impact on similar cases involving cyber crime investigations, particularly regarding pre-trial detention durations and bail considerations. Legal experts suggest that while the court has granted bail, Sah remains under scrutiny, and any violation of bail conditions could lead to stricter legal actions against him.
As the cyber crime investigation continues, authorities are expected to monitor Sah’s compliance with the bail conditions closely. His legal team has expressed confidence that he will adhere to all directives laid out by the court and prove his innocence in due course.
For now, the case serves as a reminder of the growing legal complexities surrounding cyber crimes and the judicial system’s approach to balancing investigation needs with an accused’s rights.
