Mumbai, February 13, 2024 – In a recent legal development, the Mumbai Sessions Court granted bail to Vinod Kashi Ram Kumar, a 37-year-old businessman from Delhi, accused in a cyber fraud case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology (IT) Act. The order was passed by His Honour Judge Shri S.D. Kulkarni, Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Court Room No. 66, at the City Civil and Sessions Court in Mumbai.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR registered as C.R.No. 3/2023 by the DCB CID Unit-3 and Wadala Police Station (C.R.No. 5/2023). The accused was arrested in connection with allegations under Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention) of the IPC, along with Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the IT Act, which deal with identity theft and online fraud.

Defense Claims Innocence

Advocate Anees Shaikh, representing the accused, argued that his client was falsely implicated in the case based on a concocted story, without any substantial evidence. The defense further contended that the accused was neither the beneficiary of the alleged fraud nor was any money recovered from him. It was emphasized that the accused had no prior criminal record, and nothing remained to be seized from his possession as the investigation had already been substantially completed. Given these factors, the defense pleaded for bail.

Prosecution’s Arguments Against Bail

The prosecution, represented by APP Shri Lade, strongly opposed the bail application. It was argued that:

• The accused was uncooperative during the investigation and ignored summons issued under Section 41(a)(1) of the CrPC.
• The accused, being a resident of Delhi, posed a flight risk and could potentially evade legal proceedings.
• A significant amount of money linked to the fraud had been transferred into the accused’s bank account and had yet to be recovered.
• The accused’s release could lead to the repetition of similar offenses and possible tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.

Court’s Observations and Verdict

After considering the arguments from both sides, the court ruled in favor of granting bail, citing the following reasons:

• The accused had been in custody since January 11, 2024, undergoing both police and judicial custody.
• The investigation had progressed substantially, and the seizure of evidence did not necessitate further custodial interrogation.
• The mere fact that the accused was a resident of Delhi was not sufficient grounds to deny bail.
• Prolonged detention until trial would be unjustified, given that trials often take considerable time to commence and conclude.

The court also referenced the Supreme Court judgment in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2019 SC 5272), where the apex court held that prolonged incarceration without trial, particularly when co-accused had already been granted bail, was grounds for release.

Bail Conditions

The court imposed strict conditions while granting bail to Vinod Kashi Ram Kumar:

1. He must furnish a personal bond and surety of ₹50,000.
2. He is required to report to the investigating police station on the first Saturday of every month until further notice.
3. He must appear before the investigating officer whenever summoned.
4. He shall not tamper with evidence or contact prosecution witnesses.
5. Provisional cash bail of ₹50,000 is allowed, with the condition that a surety must be provided within four weeks; failing this, the cash bail will be forfeited.
6. He is prohibited from leaving India without prior court approval.
7. He must not engage in any similar offenses in the future.

Legal and Public Reactions

Legal experts have noted that while the court exercised its discretion in favor of granting bail, the conditions imposed suggest that the judiciary remains cautious about the case’s implications. Cyber fraud cases have seen a significant rise in India, and the courts are balancing individual rights against the need for stringent measures to curb online financial crimes.

The prosecution is expected to continue its investigation and may challenge the bail order if further incriminating evidence emerges. Meanwhile, the accused will remain under judicial scrutiny as the case progresses.

Conclusion The grant of bail in this high-profile cyber fraud case underscores the judiciary’s stance on balancing investigative needs with individual liberties. While Kumar walks free for now, his legal battle is far from over, and further proceedings will determine his fate in the coming months. The case serves as a significant development in India’s ongoing efforts to tackle digital fraud while ensuring fair trial rights for the accused.