Mumbai, February 3, 2024 – In a key development in the ongoing investigation of a ₹28.43 lakh cyber fraud case, the Additional Sessions Court in Greater Mumbai rejected the bail applications of two accused, Z Ali Mohammed and Naushadali, on February 1, 2024. Presiding over Criminal Bail Application No. 63 of 2024, Additional Sessions Judge Rajesh A. Sasne denied the requests citing the gravity of the allegations and the potential risks to the ongoing investigation.
The case pertains to a sophisticated cyber fraud involving the use of fake online job offers and cryptocurrency transactions to deceive the victim into transferring large sums of money. The accused were arrested on November 23, 2023, and remain in custody as the investigation continues.
The Case Details
The North Region Cyber Police Station, Mumbai, registered the case under FIR No. 97/2023 for offences under Sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 419 (cheating by impersonation), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), and 471 (using forged documents as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case also invokes Sections 66(C) (identity theft) and 66(D) (cheating by impersonation using computer resources) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Allegations
The complainant reported that between November 16 and November 19, 2023, she received messages from an unidentified individual offering a part-time job. The scam involved tasks such as reviewing Google Map links and engaging in cryptocurrency transactions. She was persuaded to transfer funds in anticipation of earning income but was ultimately defrauded of ₹28.43 lakh.
Role of the Accused
During the investigation, it emerged that ₹6 lakh from the defrauded amount was credited to an account linked to one of the accused, Z Ali Mohammed. The second accused, Naushadali, reportedly instructed Z Ali Mohammed to open bank accounts and hand over associated documents, including passbooks, cheque books, debit cards, and SIM cards.
Additionally, evidence suggested that the accused were part of a broader network, with connections to individuals identified as Zuher alias Sayyed Abbas and Saurabh Hussain, who are yet to be apprehended. Allegedly, these accounts were used for fraudulent transactions, and the account holders were paid ₹10,000 as a reward for their cooperation.
The Prosecution’s Stand
The prosecution, represented by APP Iqbal Solkar, strongly opposed the bail applications, arguing:
- Incomplete Investigation: The case involves complex cyber fraud, requiring detailed technical analysis and recovery of evidence.
- Risk of Tampering with Evidence: The accused may influence witnesses or tamper with crucial evidence if released on bail.
- Flight Risk: Both accused are residents of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, raising concerns about their availability for further investigation and trial.
- Pending Arrests: Co-accused Zuher alias Sayyed Abbas and Saurabh Hussain remain at large, and releasing the applicants could compromise efforts to apprehend them.
Defense Arguments
Representing the accused, Advocates Rohan Sawant and Tehzib J. Kazmi contended that their clients were being falsely implicated and had already undergone custodial interrogation. They argued:
- No Need for Continued Detention: With the primary investigation completed, keeping the accused in custody served no purpose.
- Permanent Residency: Both accused provided permanent addresses and pledged to cooperate with the investigation.
- Custodial Interrogation Already Conducted: Further detention was unnecessary as key facts had already been uncovered.
Court’s Findings
After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, Judge Sasne rejected the bail applications, noting the following:
- Ongoing Investigation: The investigation was still in progress, and important co-accused were yet to be apprehended. Releasing the accused at this stage could hinder the recovery of additional evidence.
- Seriousness of the Offence: The fraud involved a significant amount of ₹28.43 lakh, indicating a well-organized and premeditated crime.
- Role of the Accused: Evidence linked the accused directly to the crime, including the use of their bank accounts to channel fraudulent transactions.
- Non-Local Residents: The accused hailed from Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, raising legitimate concerns about their potential to abscond.
- Risk of Tampering: The technical and evidentiary nature of the case required safeguarding the integrity of the investigation, which could be compromised by granting bail.
Judge Sasne concluded that granting bail at this stage could obstruct justice and jeopardize the prosecution’s efforts.
Order Summary
The court ruled:
- Bail Application Rejected: Criminal Bail Application No. 63/2024 was dismissed.
- Custody Extended: The accused will remain in judicial custody as the investigation continues.
The order, dictated on February 1, 2024, was transcribed on February 2 and signed and uploaded on February 3, 2024.
Broader Implications
This case highlights the growing prevalence of cybercrime in India, particularly scams exploiting trust in digital platforms. It underscores the challenges law enforcement faces in investigating and prosecuting such offences, which often involve sophisticated technology and cross-border networks.
By denying bail, the court has sent a strong message about the seriousness with which cyber fraud is treated. The decision reflects a balance between safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that the legal process remains uncompromised.
The investigation continues, with police efforts focused on apprehending the remaining co-accused and recovering the defrauded funds.
